Genesis 1:1
In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth.

G-d existed prior to all matter. We can properly define G-d as "the being upon which all existence depends." Only His existence is absolute; the universe exists only as contingent on His will

One G-d is an absolute being is opposed to a trinity. The Christian trinity is made of three distinct persons. Each member must therefore be finite. Three finite persons cannot be infinite. Finite beings depend on a prior absolute for their existence. They can in no way be the source of all existence.

Genesis 1:3
G-d said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

G-d's ability to create by speech illustrates creation out of nothing. G-d exists prior to all matter

Genesis 1:14
G-d said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate between day and night, and they shall be for signs, and for festivals, and for days and for years.

We expect the luminaries to provide light and function as time setters. A novel thought is expressed by "for festivals." The Torah does not ordain festivals until Moses' time. Also, that the luminaries are used for festivals may seem incidental, with no essential relation between them.

We see here that the observance of the Law is G-d's objective in creation.

Heavenly bodies have as their purpose Jewish observance. The Law is endowed with a meaning far more significant than that granted by the missionaries.

Genesis 1:16
G-d made the two great lights; the greater light to rule by day and the lesser light to rule by night, and the stars.

Is it justified to call the sun and moon "the two great lights?" Are they not small compared to some other stars? It has been said that what makes them "great" is because they serve humanity. Man is an exalted being in Biblical thought, unlike the missionary view. He is the primary focus of creation.

Genesis 1:26
G-d said, "Let us make Man in Our image, as Our likeness. (Saperstein)

While some missionaries claim the plural "us" means the Christian trinity, even evangelical commentaries (G. J. Wenham, NIV Study Bible, Charles Ryrie, Jerry Falwell, Keil and Delitzch) recognize this is a fallacy (see Let's Get Biblical, Tovia SInger, p.51). These Christian scholars recognize that there is something called the "majestic plural," i.e. a King speaks on behalf of his kingdom in a plural form. An example is Isaiah 6:6, where G-d says among His retinue of angels "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

The absurdity of a trinitarian interpretation is shown by the fact that not once in the Hebrew Bible is a plural verb ever applied to G-d. In Hebrew verbs are conjugated according to gender and singular/plural. The very next verse says "He created," not "they created," with regards to the creation of man.

Rashi has a beautiful explanation: G-d is modeling proper conduct to the reader by showing that one should consult inferiors before acting. Only G-d created man, but G-d showed respect to His subordinates.

Genesis 1:27
And G-d created Man in his image, in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them.

This is one of the fundamental teachings of the Bible. Herein lies the dignity and sanctity of the human being. This teaching is repeated after the Flood (Genesis 9:6); the divine image is not diminished as in the Christian concept of "original sin."

Man is not debased as missionaries teach. Made in the image of G-d, man is capable of emulating G-d's traits, and is enjoined to do so (Deuteronomy 28:9). (To read how Jesus misapplies this verse see article "Was Jesus Sinless?")

Genesis 1:27
...in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them.

The fullness of the divine image is found when man joins woman in marriage. This highlights the problem of a "sinless" Jesus failing to obey Scripture and marry (Genesis 1:28, 2:24).

Genesis 1:28
G-d blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it."

Why is this seemingly mundane activity subject to Divine command? G-d is interested in human beings making this world a dwelling place for G-d. Procreation and wordly development have religious value. The lesson of the Bible is that G-d is concerned that we live a certain way of life. The idea that we exist in a damned state and must be extricated by Christian "salvation" is not the Biblical viewpoint.

Genesis 1:31
And G-d saw all that He has made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Only the sixth day is called "very good." This is the day when creation was complete. G-d has a positive view of creation; the world is a good place. Man can sanctify this world and serve G-d in the world. Second, this is the day when man was created. Man is the pinnacle of creation.

In man, G-d's creative process is complete. Man occupies a majestic status worthy of "image of G-d."

Genesis 2:1-2
Thus the heaven and the earth were completed, and all their array. G-d completed on the seventh day His work which He had done...

The word "completed" (vay'chulu) suggests not simply finishing an activity, but bringing something to its desired end (Sforno). Herein lies the greatness of the Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath is a testimony that G-d's creation is purposeful. It does not go on and on, day after day. The world moves towards "completion." The Jew who observes the Sabbath experiences a sense of wholeness; a feeling deeper than words.

Genesis 2:5
Now any tree of the field was not yet on the earth and any herb of the field had not yet sprouted, for Hashem G-d had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the soil. (Saperstein)

What does the absence of man have to do with missing trees and herbs? With missing rain? Also, was not vegetation created on day three; three days prior to Adam?

Rashi explains that on day three they emerged on the ground; on day six they sprouted due to rain. Why did G-d wait to send rain? Rashi writes, "there was no one who would recognize the goodness of rains. When Adam came and knew they are a necessity for the world, he prayed for them and they came down, and the trees and vegetation sprouted."

We learn from this verse the great importance of Man. Man is G-d's primary interest, and the world is arranged for his service of G-d. Man is capable of emulating G-d's traits, and is enjoined to do so (Deuteronomy 28:9).

Genesis 2:9
And Hashem G-d caused to grow from the ground every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food; also the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.

That the trees were "pleasing to the sight" was a positive thing. Beauty makes the heart joyous and receptive- a preparation for prophecy, as in II Kings 3:15 (Sforno). G-d has a positive view of His creation. This world is not antithetical to holiness, as monastic and escapist theologies would have us believe.

Genesis 2:18
Hashem G-d said, "It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper opposite him."

Jesus thought it was good for him to be alone, and refused to marry. This is contrary to Biblical teaching. (Genesis 1:26,28; 2::24)

Genesis 2:20
And the man assigned names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to every beast of the field.

Were Adam and Eve intelligent creatures prior to the sin? The picture appears contradictory. The ability to name the animals suggests great understanding. That they were subject to Divine command (not to eat from a certain tree) makes sense only if they are intelligent creatures. On they other hand, they were naked and unashamed (2:25), indicating a lack of awareness. Also, the existence of Tree of Knowledge of good and evil suggests they lacked such knowledge before eating from it.

Nachmanides (Ramban) explains that Adam and Eve were innocent in the sense that they naturally followed G-d's will (like angels). Therefore they had no reason to feel ashamed of their nakedness. They had great intelligence but did not know what it was like to be subject to conflicting drives for good and evil. That "knowledge" came with eating from the tree

Genesis 2:22
And Hashem G-d built the side that He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to man.

SInce woman was taken from man, man is missing something of himself before marriage. With marriage he attains wholeness (1:27, 2:24).

How unfortunate that Jesus teaches man to reject marriage as an ideal (Matthew 19). Ironic that Jesus rails against divorce (though Deuteronomy permits it) based on his interpretation of Genesis, yet he discourages creation of the male-female union eloquenty called for in those same verses of Genesis!

Genesis 2:23
And the man said, ... "This shall be called woman, for from man was she taken.

Obviously the Bible is not making a linguistic connection between "woman" and "man", for the Bible was not composed in English! There is a connection between ISH and ISHA, the Hebrew words. Mizrachi commentary, as quoted by Saperstein edition, says that among ancient languages Hebrew is distinct in that man and woman are linguistically connected. Certainly, the point of the verse is meant to be understood from the Hebrew.

How foolish are missionaries who make judgment on major issues of theology based on translated texts, without recourse to the original Hebrew. Is it possible that when dealing with the word of G-d that nuances of language do not matter?!

Genesis 3:4-5
The serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die; for G-d knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like G-d, knowing good and bad."

Since Adam and Eve were so pure that they were unashamed of their nakedness (Gen 2:25), what desire did they have for sin of any kind? Rabbi Dessler explains: Simply being a creature means being aware of your existence distinct from the Creator. One is subject to egotism. Adam and Eve reasoned that if they ate from the tree they would come into contact with evil and then overcome it. This would result in a greater sanctification of G-d's name, and they would become greater as a result.

In fact, this mode of service of G-d is what we have inherited today, and is doable (Gen 4:7). But this is not what G-d commanded at that time. The tendency to rationalize violation of G-d's law for seemingly higher motives is still with us. As a result of the first sin, Divine service is now more difficult. G-d wanted Adam and Eve to serve Him through obedience to His will.

Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will pound you on the head, and you will hiss at his heel.

According to plain meaning this verse speaks of the enmity between human beings and snakes. The previous verse says "cursed are you than all animals and beasts of the field" ; so the text speaks of the animal called "snake."

The missionary claim that this verse speaks of Jesus' defeat of Satan is totally unfounded. Missionaries claim that "her seed" refers to a virgin birth since there is no reference here to Adam's seed. These missionaries cannot explain when the angel of G-d says to Hagar, "I will greatly increase your seed, and they will not be counted for abundance (Genesis 16:9)." No missionary claims Hagar had a virgin birth; Abraham is clearly identified as the father. Also, Genesis 16:19 is clearly referring to the multitude of Hagar's descendants, not to an individual. So too Eve's "seed" refers to humanity at large, not one person.

There are additional missionary errors here:

1. Missionaries put 3:15 on lists of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.  However, Christians do not believe that Jesus has fulfilled it. According to them, Jesus has not defeated the devil. Preachers warn of Satan's powers and even Paul complains that Satan interfered with his endeavors (1 Thessalonians 2:18: Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us). So why do Christians point to 3:15 as a "fulfilled prophecy"? Jesus cannot now take credit for prophecies he allegedly will fulfill in the final days.

2. According to Judaism, a verse retains its plain meaning. Even if a symbolic reading of this verse be added, where the snake represents Satan, it would indicate the opposite of missionary theology (Rabbi Hirsch). As "her offspring' means humanity, the message would be that humanity can master the Evil One (see Gen. 4:7).

In the Hebrew Bible Satan is not the devil of Christianity, but G-d's agent to provide temptation, so man can overcome temptation and attain virtue.

Genesis 3: 16-19
To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you." And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life. And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field. With the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return." (Judaica Press Complete Tanach)

Believing Christians suffer these pains as much as the rest of humanity.

Therefore we conclude that Jesus does not cure the effects of the first sin as missionaries claim.

That all the punishments are physical shows there is no basis for the concept of original sin. Nowhere does it say man's soul became tainted.

Man did become mortal; his body suffered corruption as a result of the sin. Man's body must die before his soul returns to G-d. The idea that this condition of mortality blocks salvation is without support. For more on the errors of "Original Sin," see Can Michael Brown Defend Original Sin? .

Genesis 3:17
And to man He said, "... cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.

It is remarkable that Adam is not at all cursed because of his sin. Only the ground is cursed. This is in contrast to Cain who is cursed for his sin (Gen. 4:11). The textual evidence in Genesis 3 is so far removed from Original Sin.

Genesis 3:20
The man called his wife's name Eve, because she had become the mother of all the living.

This verse makes no sense in English. What connection is there between "Eve" and "mother of all living?" In Hebrew all is clear. Missionaries err in thinking they can understand Scripture through translation.

Genesis 4:3
After a period of time, Cain brought an offering to G-d of the fruit of the ground.

What was wrong with Cain's offering that it was rejected by G-d. There is nothing wrong with an offering of fruits. G-d Himself commands offerings of fruits and grains; offerings were never limited to animals. In fact it would make sense that Cain, who grew food (Gen. 4:2), would bring such an offering. It is fully appropriate for Cain to bring from his area of work, as Abel did. This is to acknowledge that G-d is the one who has granted one's benefits; success is not the work of human hands (Deu. 8:17).

The explanation is understood from the fact that Abel brought "firstlings of the flocks and from their choicest" (Gen. 4:4). By bringing the best, Abel demonstrated his trust in G-d as the sole provider. Cain did not bring of the best. The problem is in Cain's attitude, not in the substance of his offerings.

Genesis 4:7
G-d says to Cain, "Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you?"

The story of Cain and Abel clearly shows that Christianity is mistaken in saying blood is necessary for atonement. G-d in no uncertain terms tells Cain that improved behavior will result in forgiveness of sin.

Some Christians argue that this story itself supports their position since Cain's sin was a failure to bring a blood sacrifice unlike Abel did.

1. There is no evidence that Abel's sacrifice was for a sin-offering. It can just as well be a burnt-offering.

2. The language of the text indicates that the QUALITY of the offerings was an issue. Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest.

If the issue is merely blood vs. no blood, there is no need to mention that Abel brought choice animals. Therefore the QUALITY, not the type, of Cain's sacrifice is an issue as well.

3. Mosaic Law itself ordains vegetable offerings (Leviticus 2). Why should Cain be condemned for that?

4. Though Cain's sacrifice is rejected, it is not clear that Cain's sin, referred to by G-d, is his sacrifice. It can just as well, and likely does, refer to his jealousy of brother Abel.

Genesis 6:2
That the sons G-d saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.

Missionaries agree this verse is not talking about divine beings. The term "son of G-d" is a metaphor. This refutes the argument that when Psalms 2:7 speaks of G-d's son that it must be speaking of the Trinity.

Genesis 8:21
And the L-rd smelled the pleasant aroma, and the L-rd said to Himself, "I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite all living things as I have done.

This verse is misunderstood by missionaries as promoting Original Sin doctrine. Read CAN MICHAEL BROWN DEFEND ORIGINAL SIN? to see why this is not so.

Genesis 9:5
But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.

That G-d will demand a reckoning for bloodshed makes clear what Christianity denies; G-d punishes for actions. According to missionaries, a person goes to hell simply for not believing in Jesus. They say there is a heaven for believers and hell for non-believers. But if a non-believer already gets the ultimate punishment for his non-belief, there is no room, so to speak, to punish for bloodshed if that non-believer committed bloodshed. Clearly Genesis 9:5 teaches that individual actions will affect Divine judgment.

Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G-d He made man

Prior sins of mankind in no way diminished the "image of G-d" in every human being. There is no Original Sin doctrine in the Hebrew Bible.

Genesis 9:17
And G-d said to Noah: "This is the sign of the covenant that I have set up, between Myself and between all flesh that is on the earth."

A rainbow is visible and natural. This refutes the missionary claim that a "sign" must be miraculous (Isaiah 7:14). For more information see VIRGIN BIRTH A MISCONCEPTION.

Genesis 13:13
And the people of Sodom were evil and svery sinful against G-d.

The fact that Sodom is identified in particular as wicked means Scripture does not regard all people as wicked. This negates the missionary claim that all people are wicked and therefore must be "saved." The fact that Sodom is judged for destruction, but not other cities, illustrates the same point. If no one is righteous, as missionaries tell us, what is special about Sodom that it invokes His wrath?

Genesis 13:16
And I will make your seed like the dust of the earth, so that if a man will be able to count the dust of the earth, so will your seed be counted.

The singular word "seed" here clearly includes a multitude of people. This refutes Paul's silly claim that the singular word "seed" refers to one individual i.e. Jesus (Galatians 3:16).

Genesis 18:19
For I have known him because he will command his sons and his household after him, and keep the way of the L-rd to perform righteousness and justice, in order that the L-rd bring upon Abraham that which He spoke concerning him.

This verse poses serious problems for Christian theology. Missionaries preach that the Law cannot be obeyed and that observance of the Law cannot bring one to G-d's favor. Yet G-d gives special regard to Abraham and fulfills promises to him precisely because he teaches his children to keep the Law! Anyway, why does Abraham emphasize this area of instruction? Doesn't Abraham know keeping the Law is hopeless and useless? Or perhaps Abrahan is right and Paul is wrong.

Genesis 18:23-4
And Abraham approached and said, "Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked? Perhaps there are fifty righteous men in the midst of the city; will You even destroy and not forgive the place for the sake of the fifty righteous men who are in its midst?

Missionaries tell us that all people are wicked because they are not absolutely perfect. Abraham does not share this assumption. If all are sinners, why does Abraham suppose there might be righteous individuals in Sodom? True that in Sodom no righteous people were found, but Abraham's request clearly implies a general expectation that righteous people exist. We are also not speaking of "righteous by faith"- the problem with Sodom is their behavior and Abraham is pleading for those who may be exceptions in terms of their behavior.

Genesis 26:4-5
And I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your seed all these lands, and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed, Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions."

This is a clear refutation to missionary claims that the Law cannot be kept and its observance does not bring G-d's blessing.

Genesis 33:20
There he erected an altar, and he named it "G-d, G-d of Israel."

Jacob named an altar after G-d. Of course an altar is not G-d. This refutes the missionary claim that naming someone after G-d means he is G-d (see Isaiah 9:5). For more information read the article WHO IS THE PRINCE OF PEACE?

Top >