First, in verse 2, after God created the heaven and earth, it says the earth was without form and void. However, the dry land that God names Earth in verse 10 does have form, and is not said to be void. So what we see in verse 10, is not the creation of the earth, but the forming of it, from verse 9. The creation of the earth was in verse 1. It was created formless. Concerning the difference between earth (lowercase), and Earth (uppercase) is that it wasn't properly named until verse 10 after it was formed in verse 9. This does not mean that the earth in verse 1 is a different earth than in verse 10, but likely, it is just written that way. In other words, When God created it, it was not necessarily called anything yet, until it was formed into dry land and then named, but the text is telling us in verse 1 that this is what it was. It's like your mom telling you, "I met your dad at the school dance," but you weren't born yet, but now that you are here and it's known that he is your dad, she refers to him as "your dad" even though he was not actually referred to as your dad when she met him. She's just saying that now so you understand who she is talking about. Likewise, Genesis 1:1 is just saying that it was the earth now, just so we understand what it is that God created, even though He didn't name it Earth until later on. It would be similar to your mom telling a story about when she was pregnant with you, and she says "When John was in my womb, he used to kick my stomach" even though you were not named John until after you were born and had left here womb. The original writing of Genesis would not have had lowercase and uppercase, but for us, in our language, the uppercase shows that it is considered a proper name. Perhaps, they had another way of showing that it was a proper name, mentioned in verse 10.

Secondly, we know verses 1-5 was not a summary, because there was darkness here, and this is where God said "Let there be light" and divided it from the darkness. After this, there is light and dark, meaning that once we get into verses 6-10, and beyond that, there is already light. In fact, verse 8, before He even formed the dry land and called it Earth, it says this was already the second day. The things that happened from verses 1-5 is the first day, as it says in verse 5, after light was created. And these first days and nights were created by Him also, because it wasn't until later that He made the sun and the moon to automate the creation of the rest of the days and nights. This dividing of the light and the dark, appears to have actually been the creation of the first day. It doesn't say that it was necessarily a 24 hour time period either. It may be possible that this first day or two (or three) may have been a different length of time than the ones the sun and moon would later automate in verse 14-18. Or I suppose I should say the lights, sun, and moon (or sun, moon, and stars).

.Genesis 1:1 | In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. | The words "In the beginning" would seem to refer to the beginning of the heaven and the earth, not the beginning of God. God himself is eternal and therefore would have no beginning, but always existed. However, since we live in the realm of time and all we know is time, that concept of eternity is difficult for us to grasp. Job 26:7 and Isaiah 45:18 refer to God's creation of the earth.
(Sep.13.2016) Notice that this says God created the heaven and the earth, not Heaven and Earth, because it is speaking of things, not places, as we commonly think of when we speak of someone going to Heaven when they die, or planet Earth. In verse 8, however, God does actually name the firmament Heaven, and names the dry land Earth in verse 10. This dry land was not what we see originally in verses one and two, however, because that earth mentioned in verses 1 and 2 was a thing that was without form and void, but the Earth mentioned in verse 10 was dry land that had been separated from the water, and therefore, it had form (updated Sep.22.2016). Perhaps, like we saw with the darkness in absence of light, God does not name the thing that is still without form or definition. I need to consider that thought further as I continue to seek understanding here. I also want to look at Eve as well, as she was not named before she was formed separate from Adam, and whether or not God having a name Himself comes into play in all of this.

.Genesis 1:2 (Genesis, chapter 1, verse number 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. | This verse can be further understood starting with Hebrews 1:2. It speaks of God's Son by whom God made the worlds. This is giving us a more specific hint of how exactly things came to be when God said "Let there be light" or "Let the earth bring forth grass" etc. God's Son, before He was born into the earth was the Word (and still is the Word, since the Word also exists in eternity). John 1:1-3 leads me to believe that when God spoke "Let there be," the Word came out from Him and did the construction, actually making the thing that was spoken. It says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." To research more about God creating by His Word, read Colossians 1:14-19; Colossians 2:9; Isaiah 53:1; Isaiah 55:11; Hebrews 3:1-6; Revelation 4:11; and James 1:18.

(May.10.2022) Notice that although verse 1 says God created the heaven and the earth, it only says here that the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. It doesn't say darkness was upon the face of the earth, and it doesn't say that the heaven was without form; neither does is say there was darkness in the heaven. It also does not say that darkness pervaded throughout the deep, but that it was on the face of the deep. Maybe it did pervade throughout the deep, but the words that these few verses contain (and do not contain) may be presenting to us something more complex than it immediately seems. It mentions God creating the heaven and the earth, but doesn't necessarily or specifically say anything about God creating the deep or the waters that God's face Spirit is said to have moved upon. Considering verse 9, however, it seems likely that the earth was not yet dry land, but may have been wet, or perhaps a watery mess, like mud or grits. If you're not from the south and you don't know what grits are, it's the "information age" at the time I'm writing this, so you can look up a video or something about grits and see what I'm talking about.

(May.10.2022) Something very interesting is said here in verse 2. "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." It's not that interesting, when we consider what we just heard in verse 1, but it is different, and can bring up and possibly answer some questions. In verse 1, it says "God created the heaven and the earth." So we see God creating something physical here, and later, in John 1:1-3, we are told about the Word of God creating all things, but at this point, we're not told anything about God as He created the heaven and the earth. However, in verse 2, we are given more information, and told that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," meaning that a Spirit is interacting with physical substance in a similar way as a physical being would interact with a physical substance. What's fascinating me here, is that the Spirit does not just move through the waters, but instead moves upon the face of the waters, as if it is limited by the surface tension of the water or something, which I don't believe He is; but it's still interesting that He's even recognizing the surface of the water. That's like us walking along a crack in the sidewalk, when it is nothing for us to just walk over the crack and ignore it. But even more than that, we have to walk on the sidewalk, because we can't float, but I'm pretty sure the Spirit doesn't need to move upon the face of the waters in order to travel.

So He created the earth without form, and there's water here somewhere which may be mixed in with the earth and also separate from it. Or perhaps, at this point, the earth is part of the waters, and that soupy goodness is what the Spirit was moving upon (if you can call a void thing 'soupy goodness'). But then again, I don't know, because it says the earth was formless, but the waters had a face that could be moved upon, and something having a surface seems to indicate is has some sort of form. So maybe the water was more stable, having a surface, and the earth was less stable, since it was without form. Maybe the earth was a muddy oil-based thing, and not as suitable as water to be moved upon, or the Spirit was only moving upon the face of the waters to test it out. I mean, this water surface can't fail. I mean, you can't have ships just randomly falling into rivers and oceans because the Spirit didn't perform a proper quality control check of the surface before it was rolled out for mass consumption. You can't have portions of water just breaking off from the surface too easily and creating fuzzy water that can just float off into the air somewhere and crash into some power lines. Just about everything relies on this water being a quality product. Do you know what would happen if you tried to drink fuzzy water? You would probably choke and die. Have you ever thanked the Spirit of God for moving over the face of the waters? No, you haven't... ungrateful (I'm joking).

Oops! Maybe I just introduced more misunderstanding by accidentally conflating the word "face" with "surface;" perhaps it was just a face, and not a surface. I didn't even realized I had just introduced the word "surface" here, and replaced the word face with surface. Maybe I'll leave this as an example of how easily we often replace a word or idea with something we might be more comfortable using, which may make it more difficult to understand the thing we are wrestling with.

Ultimately, I don't know why the Spirit of God was moving upon the face of the waters, but it is interesting that it happened. Maybe something in that moment led God to see a need for light, as the very next thing we are told, is that God says "Let there be light." Maybe moving over the face of the waters in the dark wasn't so easy and He kept tripping over the earth (can a Spirit trip?) and thought it would help to have some light so He could divide things, and put some things in order. I would imagine it would be more difficult to do division in the dark. Or maybe I'm (there's a word for this) making God out to be more like us by imagining Him doing things as He goes along, instead of planning out everything fully before He ever makes the first move. We do see plenty of evidence later on in the Bible that God is definitely a planner. However, the problem with my last statement, is that planning is more of a human thing, which carries with it, the possibility that things will not go according to plan. So "planning" is probably a misnomer. It could be more accurate to think that God ran a simulation first, but that also would not be accurate enough, because simulations are little more than projections. It looks like we don't really know how God does it, since we aren't exactly told, which ought to leave us in a place of humility. Many people say we don't need this collection of books, as if they can know things without it, but when information about these matters is not in this book collection, we are left not knowing it.

Despite our speculations and wonderings, it seems like we are also left without a firm understanding of what exactly formless and void means here. I thought "Maybe 'without form, and void' is another way of saying this thing we now call Earth didn't physically exist yet, but we do know that it existed because verse 1 said that God created it in the beginning. So it existed in a formless, void state. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will show or tell you their idea of what a formless and void earth would look like, but I'd be more interested in hearing what evidence or affirmation they are privy to that proves their ideas have any amount of accuracy to them. So far, the best I can say is that we don't know what it looked like, besides saying "it was dark, without form, and void," but we don't really know what exactly that looks like (or doesn't look like) because we weren't there, because we are not God, although some of us think that we are. Our ways are not His ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8).

So right now, what I'm getting from Genesis 1:1-2 is a thought that sounds something like "You (we) don't really understand the beginning, because in the beginning, when you weren't here, you didn't create the heaven and the earth, God did, so be humble, and give praise to whom praise is due, which in this matter, is not you." That's all I got.

I don't even know exactly what "the deep" is, but I'm disinclined to think it was nothing more than deep water, especially after having a dream vision of falling into something in my dream called "the deep," and sensing the somewhat voidness of it, in that it appeared to be void of time, water, air, depth, death, life, touch, awareness, interaction, possibly void of light, darkness, and it was also void of hope of getting out, or getting back out and being in the same time period you went in there in. I was aware of there being ships in there, but no bottom for them to sink to, but they were just kind of there somewhere until they got out, if there was any possibility of that happening. And it did have a surface that looked like water, but it did not have the tension or characteristics of water to allow you to swim or float in it at all. I went down into it without the resistance I would have had in water. You could come out thousands of years later without ever having experienced any passing of time. All I really understood coming out of that dream, was that there are things I can't understand. And I only realized that there was ever anything called "the deep" after I had the dream. I had read the Bible before, and read Genesis 1:2 before, but never had not noticed the term. Sure, people will tell you that "the deep" just means deep water, but how do they really know that's true? How much do the scriptures tell us about the deep?

(May.11.2022) I suppose I'll take you on this journey with me for a moment. So we see, from John 1:1-3, that the Word of God made all things, and from Genesis 1:2, that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Right now, I'm asking the question, "Is it possible that God is water, in some complex way?" He is many or all of the things that water is. He is omnipresent, invisible, life-giving and sustaining, is never said in the Bible to have a beginning, nor an end (Where did the water come from in Genesis 1:2?), can exist in different states, and break apart and join back together again, endlessly, and still be both separate and together at the same time (water, ice, vapor, can all be separate and together at the same time, and are all the same).

The Revelation 1:15 says the voice of the one like unto the Son of man was the sound of many waters, and 1 John 5:8 says that there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood. Well, I think the spirit would obviously be the Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost, and it's easy to figure out the "the blood" is most likely the reference to Jesus Christ, but what about the water? God is said to be invisible. Well, water is invisible too, as a vapor. It's in the air. When Jesus calms the seas, the people who saw it remarked that the water obeys Him. So it is able to obey. But not only do we see the water obey, it parts open for Moses when he puts the rod in the Red Sea, and Moses does not command it to part. It parts as if doing it on its own will, or obeying God, or already understands what it needs to do. The water is a witness in earth, 1 Jn 5:8 says, and we know God is also a witness, and what better witness than to be right here inside and all around us, witnessing any and EVERYTHING going on? I'm sure we could find some seeming or actual contrary points to say that God is not the water, but at the moment, it is an intriguing thought, and seems to be essentially what the scriptures say.

It could be possible that there could also be a water reference being made when Jesus says "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me..." in John 14:11, after asking Philip in verse 10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" I know many people, both Christians and non-Christians, say God is in all of us. Some believe that God is in everything. When Jesus dies, He "gives up the ghost," and is pierced in His side on the cross, blood and water come out of Him. Colossians 2:9 says "For in Him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily." It could be a stretch to say that 1 Corinthians 3:16 could also be a reference to the water that is in us, that could bear witness of everything we think and do, when it says "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" I'm certainly not saying the Spirit of God dwells in everyone, but water does. Perhaps the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters in Genesis 1:2 is evidence that this was a Holy place or a good place where the presence of the Lord was welcome. We know from the scriptures that the Spirit is not going to be in and around everybody.

I have been trying to figure out for some time, what the Father is considered before Jesus is born? Well, it's been a question of mine; I haven't put much effort into actually trying to figure it out yet. What I mean is this: before Jesus is born in flesh, He is called the Word of God, but I'm not sure He is yet called the Son. If not, is the Father, technically a Father before His firstborn is born? But maybe He is already called the son, because there is made mention of the Son of God in Daniel 3:25 in the fiery furnace with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who the king called Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. So it can stand to reason that He is the Son before He is born, and exists before He is physically born. So my understaning was that God became the Father once Jesus was born, but a Father is probably a Father before physical birth. He is called the firstborn, so in some way in which I don't understand, it seems that He could be considered to have been born before everyone else. In Colosians 1:15, He is said to be "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:".

So I'm not saying that God was not already the Father, even before Mary. But "born" could also mean being spoken as a Word (in Genesis 1:3). Maybe He was born as the Word when he was spoken in Gen 1:3, and maybe He was something else before He was the Word, like He was the Word before He became the Image of God, which I would imagine happened when He showed up by way of Mary. Or maybe not. Maybe He was still the Word even before being spoken, because what is a word? A word is still a word, even before it is spoken, or written. A word on a page is really just the image of the word. That same word can be spoken. Even before there was any such thing as writing, there were still words. And a word is first thought before it is spoken, so a word is really immaterial (not a material). And since words can be translated, then we see that words even transcend language. The word "face" is still the same word even if you translate it to Spanish and say "cara." It is still the same word. You're translating the word from one language to another. You're not exchanging the word for another word, you are translating it. And what does "translate" mean? This word "translate" is used elsewhere in the Bible, though I'm not sure what this English word was translated from. It sort of means to change from one form into another.

By considering whether it is possible that God is water, I'm not saying I think it's possible that the God we know is any less than who we ever knew Him to be, or that He would be confined to being water, or could not exist away from water, or that He is just a chemical. I am not suggesting that God is merely a chemical (yes, water is a chemical). Neither am I suggesting that anybody should bow down to a jug of water, because even if He was the waters in Genesis 1:2, He still exists beyond the earth, and as far as I know, a Spirit is not water, and the Word is not water. Remember, there is not only earth, but heaven and earth, and 1 John 5:7 says "...there are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." And the next verse says "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." It could be that God's relationship with the water could be similar to His relationship with angels, in that He could use the angels as a sort of avatar or vessel, through which He could directly interact with people, and even speak to them through, even though the angel was not actually Him. Even John seemed to struggle with differentiating between whether He was really dealing with God or an angel in the Revelation, when he tried to bow down to the angel, since God was speaking through the angel in The Revelation 22:7-13. So the moral of the story is that it's probably not a good idea to bow down to water. Next, I'd like to look into what Jesus was saying about living water again in John 4:10-14 and 7:37-39.

If God is, in some sense, appearing as waters in Genesis 1:2, then we could be seeing the Spirit of God interacting with the living water of God, or what would be the Father, perhaps. I'm not exactly sure. What's truly interesting though, is that of all the things that can be counterfeited and substituted in the world, water is not one of them. You can't make fake water. You can't exactly create any more water. And you can't destroy water, but it can destroy you. And you can't live without it. And do you know where the one place is where it appears that water won't be, but where people will want it the most, but can't have it? The same place where people will go who didn't want God, and consequently end up being without Him. That living water that will keep you from ever thirsting again, sounds pretty good now, doesn't it? when the alternative is to thirst forever. So if you are thirsty, I guess it's time for you to find Jesus to get you some of that living water that He's peddling before it's too late. Yes Jesus, I'll take two of those, please.

Now where did I put my Colossians 1:16-17?

(May.15.2022)Here's my Col. 1:16-17. Oh, and look... my Col 1:18-20, and 2:8-10 are along with it. Well, it looks like we may need to review all of Colossians in light of Genesis, but at least let's cover these verses I mentioned now. Col. 1:16-20 says: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. So along with John 1, we have Colossians 1, to know that this creator being spoken of is the Word that was born among us and became known as Jesus Christ. Verse 16 draws our attention to things we overlook in Genesis, as our attention in Genesis is drawn toward the earthly and visible material creations. We ought to remember that He also created things in heaven, as well as other invisible things that may be in Heaven or on or around Earth. 1 Col. 1:17 is supported by Hebrews 2:10 and ties in with Jesus' own testimony when He said "before Abraham was, I am." When we look up the word "consist," Webster's 1828 dictionary gives the following definition

(verb intransitive [Latin, to stand.]) "To stand together; to be in a fixed or permanent state, as a body composed of parts in union or connection. Hence, to be; to exist; to subsist; to be supported and maintained. // He was before all things, and by him all things consist -Colossians 1:17."

To consist together, to coexist; to have being concurrently. // Necessity and election cannot consist together in the same act.

To consist with, to agree; to be in accordance with; to be compatible. // Health consists with temperance alone. (www.webstersdictionary1828.com 5/15/2022)

I still remember the moment I was walking through the house in 2008 and I heard the mind-blowing words in my mind (not a voice) "I am the definition of definition." Sometimes catchy lines or words will come into my mind, which I believe the Lord gives to me, and I will use them in my poems, or I might say I think of them, but I believe He gives them to me. And I at first thought this was one, but I quickly realized that this is not something I can say. Even "I am the definition" alone would be too great for me to say, but I could not even grasp the concept of "I am the definition of definition." The more I thought about it, the more it stumped me. They were words that I could understand more than "I am that I am," but the level of importance appeared to me to reach beyond that. Because for a thing to exist as it is, it must have some definition, meaning the seperation of it from the thing it sits on, or which sits on or next to it. But then to understand that He is the definition of that definition, because that definition must also be defined, or else it can not hold up. Ultimately, without Him, things could only be formless, if even that. Then we get into what the word "definition" means in terms of dictionary definitions, which is really just the literary explanation of real definition; the explanation of what makes this one thing what it is, and not something else. Without the definition, it is undefined. But then, the word definition must have definition, or else "definition" itself is undefined. And this ties into my understanding of "by him all things consist." in Col. 1:17. In other words, it appears that not only did creation need Him to create it, but eveything in creation, visible and invisible, also needs Him to even maintain its own existence, and not become like a useless molten lava, all flowing formlessly together, which ultimately could go back to being void, or not any better than void. Nothing could be anything. I could not be me; you could not be you. I can't help but think that, perhaps, this is what the lake of fire is, where He will not be, as far as I understand. This could be what things devolve into. And if He is the light, then you have darkness, which may relate to the mention of outer darkness.

To finish up for the day, Colossians 2:8-10 further supports that this is speaking of Jesus Christ by saying, "8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: And Col. 1:19 and Col. 2:9 tie together about the fulness that dwells in Him, as does The Revelation 1:8.

(May.15.2022)Jeremiah the prophet might give us a little bit more information in Jeremiah 4:23-24, saying "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly." Following these verses, Jeremiah spoke of other things he beheld which were not of the very beginning, such as when he says he saw cities broken down, so I don't know if what he says in verse 23 was from the same time as what he saw in verse 24, but if so, it could offer a clue about this formless, void, earth. If verse 24 is at the same time as verse 23, and he is speaking about the creation, then it could be a possibility that this earth without form and void was volcanos, perhaps as underwater mountains. The only problem, is that mountains would seem to have form, but not if they were erupting volcanos. Erupting volcanos are flowing molten rock, so technically they are earth, and can also be under the water, and come up and form dry land, like Hawaii. And this molten rock, or lava, can be considered void, because nothing can live in that for two reasons. It is too dense, and it is too hot. I didn't have to tell you the second one.

The density of lava matters, because it means that unless something is heavier than the molten rock, which is immensely dense, it will sit above the lava, not sink down inside of it, as it would with water, or another liquid. Just because it is in liquid form, doesn't mean that anything can float around inside of it. For example, other hot elements that are incredibly dense are gold and silver. When they are melted, the impurities come to the surface, because the pure gold and silver are heavier than the impurities; and the heavier substance will (sink) or go down to the bottom, and push up the lighter substance. So after the gold and silver is melted, those impurities that come to the surface is called dross. In other words, this lava is rock. And just like a rock will sink to the bottom of a lake if you throw it in, this lava rock will go to the bottom of anything that is not denser than it. This is a good thing for humans, however, because we are not heavier than rock. That means that it is basically impossible for us to drown in lava, because we're too lightweight to go down into it. And I doubt anyone would last long enough to get pressed down into it, even if it were possible. With that said, if the earth was lava in the beginning, that would make sense as to why God would have waited until the third day to create the grass and plantlife, the fifth day to create the birds and sea life, and the sixth day to create the land creatures and man. Now about whether mountains/volcanos could be considered to be without form, if they are overflowing with molten rock, then perhaps that qualifies as being without form, at least until the lava stops flowing and cools off. I thought of mountains when reading Jeremiah 4:24 because I believe elsewhere I read volcanos being referred to as mountains, and the "trembling" Jeremiah mentions, could refer to volcanic activity, and the hills moving lightly could refer to flowing lava. Maybe there could be a link between volcano, void, and v'vohu (from tohu v'vohu - the hebrew for "without form and void").
Psalm 104:6 talks about "the deep."
(Aug.16.2022) A Youtube video titled "Science CONFIRMS Noah's Ark and the Flood!" by Answers in Genesis around 35:12 talks about how a volcano can cause earth structures to form and reform, and almost immediately create rock layers, and canyons, once thought by scientists to be evidence of extremely long time periods of time. They were using this information as proof of the worldwide flood of Noah's time, but this could be very relevant when thinking of the creation events revealed in Genesis, which some scientists like to say took millions of years, and cause children to doubt the testimony of Genesis.

.Genesis 1:3 (June.10.2013) | And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. | Isaiah 48:12;
(Sep.13.2016) God saying "let there be light" doesn't necessarily mean that light did not already exist, perhaps within Himself. I'm not sure of the complete definition or meaning of the word "there" when He says "Let there be light," but it could signify geographic placement, as in "let there be light" instead of "let here be light."
(May.15.2022) The interesting thing about this part of the creation, is that, unlike the rest of the creation, after God says "Let there be light:" there is no creation process mentioned whatsoever. When He says it, then there just is. It doesn't say anything was done to make or form it, unlike the other things. And this is the first thing spoken into existence, or spoken into place. In verses 6-7, "Let there be..." is followed by "And God made..." In verse 9, there is a gathering of the waters process, instead of Him simply saying something like "let there be dry land... and there was dry land." In verses 14-16, "Let there be lights in the firmament..." is followed by "And God made two great lights;" and verses 20-21 also gives us a speaking and creation process. "Let the waters bring forth abundantly... And God created whales." "Let the earth bring forth the living creature" in verse 24 is followed by "And God made the beast of the earth" in verse 25. Even "Let us make man in our own image" in verse 26 is followed by "So God created man in his own image..." And guess what... for God to create man in His own image, I think that means that God had to have an image already, but we are not told about that. Elsewhere, it says Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren. In Colossians 1:15, it says Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Why are we talking about Jesus?

In John 8:12, Jesus says "I am the light of the world..." While we may think this just means He's only speaking figuratively, not also literally, we ought to consider that in Revelation 21:23, the city, New Jerusalem is lit by the Lamb of God, who is identified in Revelation 5:5-6 as Jesus. Rev. 21:23 says "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." So just like in Genesis 1:3, there is light here, but without the sun or moon. So it's possible that we don't see a creation process mentioned in Gen. 1:3, because there is no real creation of the light, and all He had to do was show up. Perhaps we could consider this the world's first "glow up." First it was dark, then there was light, and verse 5 says "and the evening and the morning were the first day." Maybe this is why Jesus says "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." in The Revelation 22:16. What I meant to point out here is that there seems to be a pattern of darkness being overtaken by light.

We also see that this light in Genesis 1:3 was the first being that God saw was good, according to Genesis. In fact, this is the first mention of God seeing anything. I chose to say "being" because I wasn't quite comfortable saying "thing," and God does say "Let there be" so it should be justifiable to say "being." I hesitate to say "creation" since there is no creation or creation process mentioned. And this being may very well be the Word of God. And the Word of God, our creator, is not just a "thing."

.Genesis 1:4 (May.16.2022) | And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. | In John 8:12, Jesus says "I am the light of the world..." And in Matthew 10:34, He says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Then He proceeded to speak about how He came to divide people. The primary function of a sword, is to divide. In Ephesians 6:17, we are told that the sword of the Spirit is the word of God. And remember, that in John 1:1-3,14, and other scriptures we are informed that that Jesus, before He is born into the flesh, is the Word. This is all important, because the first thing we see here in Genesis 1:4, with the arrival of the light, is dividing. God sees that the light is good, and divides it from the darkness. He says nothing about the darkness, but immediately sees a need to separate the light from darkness. It is interesting that the light is called light and good, but the darkness is called darkness, not dark, and was never called good; also that the light is not called lightness. Two scriptures that help us see why division can be necessary are Amos 3:3 and 2 Corinthians 6:14. Amos 3:3 asks the rhetorical question "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" And 2 Cor. 6:14 says "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

There appears to be a common pattern that we see here of things being in, or going from darkness to light. First, in Gen. 1:1-2 there is darkness. Then there is light. And the evening and the morning is the first day; not the morning and the evening. We keep seeing darkness, then light, which would appear unnatural, because you can easily understand how to get darkness from light. You turn out, or knock out the light, but how do you get light from darkness? But this is a commond thing we continue to see happening. And they are separated, and there is a difference made between them. One is called one thing, and the other is called something else. They do not agree. When light comes, darkness leaves. They are not in fellowship with one another. Ephesians 5:8-13 says "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light." The next chapter goes on to warn the children of the light that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." This doesn't necessarily mean that the darkness that was in the beginning in Gen.1 was bad, but in the absence of the light, we do see that there was unfruitfulness. And remember, that we are told that in the Word is life, and that the life was the light of men. Like the earth, man is brought to light from being in darkness, which is not so remarkable when we remember that we are formed from the earth. Although we count our days differently than we see here in Genesis, the darkness to light may be a constant daily reminder to us, that we are, or ought to come from darkness to light. Other scriptures to consider are Luke 8:16-17; 12:3; John 1:4-5, and take note that John 1:5 says the darkness didn't comprehend the light, not the light didn't comprehend the dark. This would make sense with the pattern of dark to light, even when speaking of people, because people who are light, were once darkness, so they know what that's about, but people are are darkness were not light. In other words, if you are light, you can expect to be misunderstood, and probably also not fit in with darkness, because there is division needed between light and dark, because they do not have the same aims and purpose. If you doubt this, find some people who are comfortable in the dark, and walk around with a bright lamp. You will probably not be celebrated, but if your aim is to let them see the cliff they are about to unknowingly walk off, then you might help save some people. Now it may be a cliff, but if that cliff doesn't look like a cliff, but a fun slide, then you can understand that a lot of those people are going to be upset with you for coming around and ruining their party, regardless of whether you're saving lives or not.

.Genesis 1:3-15 | 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. | If the days were created in the first day with evening and morning, how then did the lights in v. 14 divide the day from the night?
Perhaps He made the day and the night each time Himself for the first three days, and then, on the fourth day He automated the process by making lights that would make the day and night themselves. Likewise, He made man, then He made another man (woman), then He enabled and appointed them to make the rest of the people (automation).

.Genesis 1:5 | And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. | "...the evening and the morning were the first day." The day was actually the evening and the morning, although now we think of a day as being a morning followed by the evening. Matthew 28:1 may reference this also.
(Sep.13.2016) Notice here that Day is the first thing that was ever named in the scriptures, and God named it, which means He is first establishing His dominion. In history, as shown in the Bible, naming signifies dominion. God gave man dominion over all of the animals and brought them to man for man to name them in Genesis 2:19. Parents name their children. So when God names the light Day and the darkness Night, it signifies His dominion over both Day and Night. Notice that Day and Night are not considered descriptions here as people commonly use them today, but are capitalized names. So although God said the light was good, He rules over both the Day and Night. And although the darkness appears to exist before the light does, it does not seem to be a recognized thing in and of itself, since it does not get named while it is still there alone without the presence of light. Perhaps the presence of light here helps define and legitimize the darkness. We also might consider that God saying "let there be light" in verse 3 doesn't necessarily mean that light did not already exist, perhaps within Himself. I'm not sure of the complete definition or meaning of the word "there" when He says "Let there be light," but it could signify location, as in "let there be light" instead of "let here be light."

.Genesis 1:6 | And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. | This says that God made a firmament to divide the waters. With us living on the surface of the earth, we usually think of it backwards. To our eyes, the water divides the land (or the firmament), but consider the fact that every ocean has a floor. Therefore, the land is not actually divided. Maybe on the surface, it appears that way, but the land is actually one mass, which on the surface divides the oceans and waters from each other. So much for the world being flat. Since they couldn't go deep enough in the ocean during those days and didn't have the mapping technology that we have now, it'd be interesting to know what those who didn't hear or believe the Word of God thought was at the bottom of the ocean. Perhaps they thought the world was all water and the land simply floated in it. (June.10.2013) The islands would float away.
(Sep.13.2016) Looking at my observations of how the text is worded in verse 1-5 and in verse 8, it could be possible that Heaven (the place, the firmament), is different than "the heaven" (the thing) that God is said to have created in verse 1, because it seems that God says "let there be light" before He says "let there be a firmament." (Sep.22.2016) From the way the text reads, there appears to be a pattern, which we can identify at the end of verses 5 and 8, which allows us to see that the light was created on the first day, and the firmament was created on the second day. However, I'm not ruling out the possibility here that verse 1 is only a summary of the creation of the heaven and the earth, since the term "heaven" is not mentioned again until verse 8. Some say they are certain that verse 1 is just a summary, but I would rather err on the side of uncertainty here, than to make a certain claim with without certainty.

.Genesis 1:6-7 (May.12.2022) | 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. | Unlike verse 3, when God spoke, and it was done in the same verse, here, when God speaks, we don't see the thing being done until the next verse. This is interesting, because if you consider that John 1:1-3 says that it is the Word that created all things, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, then what it appears that we are actually seeing happen here, is that God (who we will later know as the Father) is saying what is to be done, and God (who we will later know as the Word), is actually doing the doing, or making the thing. So this would be Him who will later be named Jesus that is making this firmament here in verse 7. This would be evidence He could point to if questioned about why He said "before Abraham was, I am" in John 8:58. He was here in the beginning. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:1-3. And John 1:14 follows up by saying "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

What is also interesting about this, is that we see this type of amalgamation (if that's an appropriate word), not only here at the very beginning of the Bible, but at the very end of the Bible, when God is speaking, and the angel and John are there, but it becomes difficult to tell one apart from the other. And it is seemingly less important to have to differentiate, because part of the unspoken message is that there is a oneness, or unity, among them. In other words, in the beginning of Genesis, it is difficult to differentiate between who is who, and also at the end of The Revelation, it is difficult to differentiate between who is who.

.Genesis 1:8 (Sep.13.2016) | And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. | The firmament that divided the waters is named Heaven by God here.

.Genesis 1:10 | And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. | "God saw that it was good." In the beginning, God was the only one "seeing" what was good. The next living being that is said to supposedly "see" what is good is Eve in Genesis 3:6 before she ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

.Genesis 1:11,24 | 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. 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. | Verses 11 and 24 tell us that God determined that animals and non-animals reproduce their own kind. Can I say that? non-animals? (June.10.2013) Inanimate life-forms.

.Genesis 1:26 | 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 upon the earth. | Note that in verse 26, God actually says "let us make man in our image and after our likeness..." The Old Testament was originally written in the Hebrew language and Genesis 1:1 began with "Bereshith bara Elohim..." Elohim is the word for God, but it is a plural word. This is explained in 1 John 5:7 ("1 John" is a different book than "John" and is pronounced "First John." It's found near the end of the New Testament, while John is in the beginning of the New Testament in the Bible. 1 John 5:7 says "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Also see Zechariah 4:11-14.
(Sep.23.2016) Instead of trying to understand how God can be three beings in one, it may help to simply think of different parts of God as being God. Use me for example. I am me. My hand is also me. And my face, although you can't see it right now, is also me. In fact, you can't see my hand either. The only part of me that you can see right now is my words that came from me. Whatever you say about my words, although they are separated from me, you would be saying about me. If you say my words are a lie, you would be saying that I'm lying. In John 1:1 we are told that in the beginning God's Word existed, and it was with Him, and it was Him. Later in the chapter, around verse 14, it says that that God's Word came to live among us and describes His Word as being Jesus. That may be advanced for those who don't understand the concept of what I'm saying. To state this a simpler way, I'll say that if you hit my hand, you hit me, because my hand is me, although it is still distinctly a hand all by itself. If you hit it, you are actually hitting me, because it is me. If you see it, you see me. Yet, it doesn't do it's own thing, it does what I tell it to do (and by tell, I don't mean with words). God and His Word, which we now identify as Jesus, have a similar relationship. Remember that Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father," "I and my Father are one," and most tellingly, John 5:19 says "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." This appears to be a similar relationship to to you and your hand, which you are able to perfectly communicate to without words. Your hand can also be cut off from you and reattached (if you had someone skilled enough to reattach it). Likewise, Jesus was cut off from the Father on the cross, and still be God's Word and God's image the whole time, and later reconnected. It also benefits our understanding that Jesus refers to Himself and His relationship to others as being that of a body, since He says that He is the head and we are members (body parts) of His body in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. This is why God is considered only one God, instead of three Gods. Although people say that God exists in three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), scripture does not say that. It does not call them three persons anywhere in scripture, nor does it refer to them as three Gods. So Christians are not considered to be polytheistic. This also means that Jesus is God, and serving Jesus, does not equate to serving another god or committing idolatry, and is not a violation of the first commandment, which says "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

.Genesis 1:27 | So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. | This verse has unexpected wording if you're thinking of man as simply male, because it says "God created man," but then it says "male and female created he them." It's possibly worded this way because God made Eve from Adam's rib (Gen 2:21-23). When Adam was made, he was made with ribs. Therefore Eve, being his rib, was made at the same time he was. God made them both together. On (Jan.1.2017) Toyin Okediji adds "Eve was just manifested at a later time just like Jesus was from the beginning but just manifested at a later time." I suppose that could also possibly relate to man being made in God's image. (Dec.25.2014) Also notice that every verse in Genesis 1 starts with the word “And” except this verse (verse 27), and verse 1.
(Sep.13.2016, Dec.4.2021) Concerning God making man in the image of God, this may mean that man was made in Jesus Christ or in the image of Jesus Christ, since Paul identifies Jesus Christ as "the image of the invisible God" in Colossians 1:15.

.Genesis 1:22,28 | 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 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 upon the earth. | As far as we know, this is the first time God spoke to anything outside of Himself.

.Genesis 1:28 (Sep.13.2016) | 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. | When God tells them to "replenish the earth" here, He may be referring to them replenishing the food and resources they and the animals are eating and using up, so there will always be food and resources. (Sep.22.2016) After all, God did take man from the place where he was created at, and put him in the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it Genesis 2:15 tells us.
(Jun.4.2023)God says "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth to Noah and his sons also in Gen 9:1. It sounds as though He is also speaking to Noah, but since Noah does not appear to have any other children afterward, it seems as if this is not specifically restricted to human reproduction, but replenishing the earth in other ways as well, as mentioned before.

.Genesis 2:4 | (Dec.26.2014) Notice that this is our first introduction to God as "LORD," which He is called approximately another ten times in this chapter and nine in chapter 3. I doubt that it is a coincidence that He happens to be referred to now as LORD God, immediately after He has finished His grand creation. I suppose now, He has something legitimate to be Lord over. It's as if He changes hats (metaphorically speaking) from the creative artist to the LORD of the creation.

.Genesis 2:14 | This river Euphrates is also mentioned in Revelation 16:12 (Rev. 16:12).

.Genesis 2:17 | Notice that Eve was not yet made from Adam when God gave him the command. This is important because she accidentally misquotes God later when the serpent asks her what this command is? Perhaps it was due to a lack of communication between Adam and Eve, causing her to misunderstand the command. Or maybe Adam misunderstands the command and miscommunicates it to Eve. God said not to eat of the tree. He didn't say anything about touching it, but when questioned, Eve told the serpent that God said "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." This is a huge misunderstanding that may play a big part in the fall of man. Because she is wrongly thinking that she will die if she touches it, she may have had the fruit in her hand thinking "oh, I'm touching it and I'm not dead," so she thought that the serpent was right (in verse 3:4) that she shall not surely die. So she went ahead and ate it. Well, perhaps the serpent didn't lie about her not dying if she ate the fruit, but still deceived her. In actuality, God had not told her that she couldn't eat it. He told Adam that he couldn't eat it. Yet, Eve thought that since she ate from the tree of knowledge of "good" and evil she could now see and judge what was good and evil. Therefore, she thought she was now knowledgeable and qualified to tell Adam whether it was good or not for him to eat. Listening to the serpent, she messed around and deceived her own self into thinking she was now hot stuff and had a Ph.D. in good and evil, when she was probably just the same as before she bit the fruit. Galatians 6:3 says, "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." (May.29.2015) Notice God also says "thou shalt surely die" in 20:7 to king Abimelech the king, if he does not restore Abraham's wife.

.Genesis 2:18 | (Dec.26.2014) From this verse, we see that Genesis chapters one and two is not told in a linear timeframe, since here it says Adam is alone and God makes Eve, but in 1:27, it says God created them, male and female, and blessed "them" in verse 28. This leaves us to view Genesis one (or certain parts of it) as a summary, which later is retold in greater detail, such as here in Chapter 2.

.Genesis 2:19 | God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. In 2:23 Adam called his wife "woman" and named her Eve in 3:20. Parents name their children. God named His son, Jesus (Luke 1:19,31). We learn that he (or she) which names someone or something does so because they are the ones that have rule over that person or thing. It would be interesting to study where else in the Bible God has named people or renamed them and under what circumstances. (Dec.26.2014) In this verse, it sounds as if God made Adam first and then made the animals, but in Genesis 1:24-27 it sounds as if God made the animals first. First, the word "and" and not "then" is used, so neither specifies which happened first, but just that they happened. Genesis 1, gives us a general time frame, that it was after the fifth day, and apparently after He made the fowl of the air and the fish and wales in the sea. However, 2:19 doesn't specify any time frame.

.Genesis 2:21 | (Dec.26.2014) In hospitals all over the world, it is now standard practice to put people to sleep before a major operation, but we see here that God was the first to do it, way before anyone knew such a concept was possible. It's also interesting to note that this is recorded in the Bible way before anyone had any idea that surgery on a person in deep sleep was possible, or even an option. We don't know, however, if God used a type of anesthesia, because we're not told how He did it.

.Genesis 2:28 | (Dec.26.2014) All of this is important to note, because some have raised the question of whether "replenish" means that God was telling man to repopulate the earth, as if it had once been populated before man. But this verse does not appear to lend itself that speculation, because it simply doesn't say that. So we must call it a speculation, if even that, since God did not specify that meaning, and also sense the scriptures say the earth was void, without form, and dark, and God then created the light into existence, and then created man into existence; in His (God's) likeness, not the likeness of some preexisting man or being. I would therefore conclude that it would be wrong to say that the earth was ever populated before God's seven day creation, because that wouldn't make sense. -->

.Genesis 3:3 | (Dec.26.2014) Notice that Eve incorrectly states that God said not to touch the tree. However, looking back at 2:17, before Eve was made from man, We see that God never told Adam not to touch it. And furthermore, God told this to Adam, not to Eve. It never says He told Eve this. This is important to note, because later when they each eat the fruit, we see that nothing is said to have happened when Eve eats the fruit.

.Genesis 3:6 | Although this says that Adam was with Eve when she bit the fruit, notice that we are not given a time span from when the serpent spoke with Eve until when she bit the fruit. Some believe that Adam was with Eve when the serpent spoke to her and that he stood there idle, but since we are not given a time frame, it's possible that the serpent may have spoken with Eve way before she ever decided she was going to eat the fruit. The serpent could have planted his seed of temptation in Eve years ago and it finally grew into an intense urge until one day she just gave in and ate the forbidden fruit.
(May.30.2023) Notice how Adam is now being referred to as her husband, and being with her, almost like she is the primary one now, and he's the one there with her , and being led and fed by her, instead of what it looks like we see in verses 20-23, although it does say a man shall cleave unto his wife in verse 24.

.Genesis 3:10-11 | This is funny (yet not funny) because when Adam told God he was naked, God asks him who told him he was naked. God was asking him, "Adam, who even taught you that word? And furthermore, who told you that it was even wrong to be naked?"

.Genesis 3:12 | Adam answers God by trying to pass the blame off on God as if it was partially God's fault that he did what he did. "...that woman whom thou gavest to be with me." It's almost as if Adam was saying "I would have been fine if you had just left me alone." This makes me wonder if this is the reason God said in James 1:13, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Is this why Adam did it? Lust? Lust has not done good things for us men. (June.10.2013) In this passage, we also see that Adam said "to be with me," making it clear that she's with him, not him with her.

.Genesis 3:14-16 | Note that when God deals out punishments for the deed that was done, Eve was not actually being punished for anything, but was reaping consequences of what Adam did. I say this because God specifically says to the serpent "Because thou hast done this..." and says to Adam "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife," but to Eve, God just says "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow, etc." He does not say "Because thou hast" to Eve, possibly because according to the scripture He didn't tell her what not to do. It's likely that He did not give her that commandment/law to live by, but gave it to Adam, although she should have supported Adam in that since we know she'd heard something of it. For further understanding, read Romans 4:15; 5:13 (Romans 4:13 & Romans 5:13).

.Genesis 3:17 | This correlates with Ecclesiastes 1:18 when it says "he that increaseth knowledge increases sorrow. Remember, Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Part of his consequence now is to eat in sorrow all the days of his life.

.Genesis 3:21 | God made coats of skins to clothe them. This means something had to die in order for their nakedness/their shame to be covered up, for their sin to be hidden. This is the beginning of blood being shed and sacrifices for sin. Likewise, Jesus blood was shed and His life sacrificed for our sin.

.Matthew 1:1-10 | I noted in my Bible that I memorized Matthew 1:1-10 on 10/21/2005. It has just now turned 1/1/2009 and I don't have this memorized any longer, but knowing the names is now helping me to cross reference these scriptures when I run across them in the old testament.

.Matthew 1:3 | Phares and Zara are two brothers spoken of in Genesis 38:29-30 and 46:12. Judas, here in Matthew is then called "Judah" in Genesis 46:12 and Thamar is "Tamar," who is the widow that pretended to be a harlot in Genesis 38:14. Judah was Tamar's father in law, because she married his son Er, who God slew cause he was wicked. She deceitfully disguised herself as a harlot and put herself in Judah's path of travel and he gave her his signet and bracelets as a promise to pay her for sex. Unknowingly, he got her pregnant with twins, Pharez and Zarah. This is how they were born. Zarah put his hand outside of the womb first, although he pulled it back in and Pharez actually came out first (Gen 38:27-30). She cunningly used his signet and bracelets to prove that they were his children (bracelets were likely used as engagement rings are now. Genesis 24:47).

.Matthew 1:6 | We're told that Solomon was the child of David and her who had been the wife of Urias. This is important to note, because Solomon was the product of an adulterous affair between Uriah's wife and David. David later had Uriah killed so he could have the woman for himself. This did not stop God from making Solomon one of the wisest people and even a King. There are people today who may not come from the most ideal situations, but this does not keep God from blessing them and using them mightily. (June.10.2013) However, it is important to note that David did repent, as God requires repentance.

.Matthew 1:22-23 | refers to the words spoken by the prophet Isaiah, in Isaiah 7:14. Notice that in Isaiah, His name is spelled "Immanuel," but in Matthew it's spelled "Emmanuel." While reading, remember that not only has our Bible been translated from other languages, but that the world was not always so text based. The world was not always so particular about how everything was spelled because speaking and hearing was the common means of communication. Although my name is properly spelled Eric (to identify me), it's actually the same name as Erick, Erik, Aric, or Enrique.