Legal Concepts: Crypto-Exchange Vs. Prediction Market

In the last blog posting in this series, we saw that cryptocurrency is a collective assertion of economic value which - - having been once accepted via a crypto-exchange from a world of traditional economics and not yet remitted via a crypto-exchange back into that traditional world - - might be said to exist only on decentralized, ID-encrypted spreadsheets.  In cryptocurrency, the veracity of the spreadsheets is maintained by computers incessantly calculating validation codes, while a decentralized ledger (blockchain) supposedly eliminates the need for banks.

      World economics have moved, like an economic Zeitgeist, beyond the use of gold or other commodities as the bases for monetary systems.  This Zeitgeist holds some commodities in especially low regard: For example, natural diamonds require complex valuation, possess low liquidity, and are subject to various kinds of technological or political manipulation.  The economic Zeitgeist also recoils in horror from other monetary-system problems.  For example, traditional monetary systems are menaced by the effective confiscation of wealth via thievery, unlimited taxation, and inflation.  Cryptocurrencies might suffer from lapses in computer programming.

      Bitcoin (BTC) was the first decentralized, digital currency (cryptocurrency).  BTC operates without a central bank.  Apparently, there are now many millions of cryptocurrencies, many of which are scams.  (How would anyone know if a given cryptocurrency is a scam?  Digital currencies are not regulated!)  Apparently, there are hundreds of companies providing crypto-exchange services.  Coinbase is a company that provides crypto-exchange services. 

      As bids for, as well as redemptions from a cryptocurrency fluctuate over time, the value of that cryptocurrency fluctuates.  It would seem that cryptocurrency is like a commodity, except that there is no underlying stream of economic value providing revenue and justifying a traditional stock price as the net present value of all future expected cash flows from the operations of that traditional company. Hence, on one level, it seems that a cryptocurrency is a commodity that maintains a value varying continuously over time.  After all, one cryptocurrency is called bitcoin, invoking the spirit of coins and commodities past.  In contrast, there would be no pork bellies, silver bullion, or idled Studebaker factories left over if a cryptocurrency vanishes.

      Cryptocurrency proprietors would like to recruit investors who think that there are big cryptocurrency profits to be gained while the government learns how to regulate and to tax cryptocurrency just as completely as it does all other forms of economic life.  As of April 2026, the Wall Street capitalization of cryptocurrency firms was $300 billion.  As of December 2025, the total of all Wall Street capitalization was $72 trillion.  Thus, on this metric, cryptocurrency is approximately 0.4% of the total market capitalization on Wall Street.  Some investors seem to be expecting big profits, but is that a rational expectation?

      The New York Attorney General (NYAG) is doing her part to lay the legal groundwork for regulating and taxing cryptocurrencies.  Kevin T. Dugan has recently reported that the NYAG has sued the crypto-exchanges Coinbase and Gemini, accusing them of “operating prediction markets that violate state gambling laws.”  In other words, the NYAG alleges that these crypto-exchanges, which facilitate money passing into and out of digital accounts (cryptocurrency), are like “prediction markets,” which facilitate “yes/no” contracts allowing people to bet on future events (e.g., stock-market levels, election results, or sporting outcomes). 

      Two prominent prediction-market firms, Polymarket and Kalshi, are shocked - - shocked! - - to learn that gambling may be going on in their environs.  These firms advertise themselves as “life-changing tools for regular people” - - like the injured and unemployed restaurant cook who started with nothing, gained $41,000.00 by betting on snowfall totals in Detroit and on various sports events, and then quickly lost it all.  The Wall Street Journal found that, in the case of Polymarket, 67% of the “profits” (which might indeed seem to the uninitiated to be gambling proceeds) flow to just 0.1% of the accounts.  Polymarket and Kalshi maintain that they are only facilitating the monetization of what a customer already knows.  In traditional gambling, bookmakers set odds, collect bets, pay off winners, and are referred to as “the house.”  In prediction markets, there is no “house,” and customers make trades directly among one another “on a computer platform.”  These “platforms” make money on fees levied on users.

      How exactly are crypto-exchanges “like” prediction markets?  Evidently, no one knows, and this entire legal exercise by the NYAG is a trial balloon meant to entice activist judges across the land to strike heroic poses until the case ends up at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Perhaps SCOTUS will rule that the common lack of underlying revenue streams justifies regulating and taxing cryptocurrencies just like prediction markets, treating both as species of gambling.  Perhaps SCOTUS will rule that the continuously varying valuation of cryptocurrency justifies differentiating cryptocurrencies from prediction markets, where each “contract” evaluates as either zero dollars or one dollar after each contract-event.

      Dugan suggests that prediction-market operators have been caught in a no-man’s land between state and federal regulators.  Prediction markets have been buoyed by sports betting, yet the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission says that it can regulate this activity, short-circuiting state gambling regulators.  The most recent lawsuit by the NYAG is an escalation of this fight over the prerogative of state gambling commissions to regulate crypto-exchanges.  The suit alleges that Coinbase and Gemini are allowing people under 21 to gamble and to bet on New York sports teams.  Furthermore, the suit alleges that these two firms are side-stepping their obligations to pay taxes like sports casinos and sports apps do.  The state seeks mega-financial penalties against Coinbase and Gemini (e.g., three times their profits), which would of course destroy those firms.

      New York state is one of the nation’s largest gambling markets.  The owner of the Mets recently won a lucrative license to run a gambling casino near the Mets’ home field - - and to pay some serious taxes on the proceeds.  Why shouldn’t crypto-exchanges likewise pay tax?  Similar legal fights have occurred in Nevada and New Jersey.  One hesitates to predict how this legal battle will unfold!

No results found

The World of Economics and Cryptocurrency

I was very surprised - - if not, indeed, utterly astonished - - to have been asked, on the occasion of my “diamond birthday-anniversary,” for one or more essays on the economics of cryptocurrency.  Economics is the study of the management of scarce resources, for which supply and demand set prices clearing markets.  Cryptocurrency is a collective assertion of economic value which - - having been once accepted from or remitted to an assumed “external world” of economic value independently defined - - might be said to exist only on decentralized, publicly available spreadsheets.  Although such spreadsheets are in the public domain, the user identities are encrypted.  The veracity of the spreadsheets is maintained by computers continually calculating validation codes.  Some prominent players in this field believe that cryptocurrency will replace gold as a non-governmental store of value in the future.

      Regarding cryptocurrency: There had been some enthusiasm for “replacing the banking system” as early as the 1980’s and 1990’s, but this Promethean task was too daunting for that era.  Subsequently, an anonymous group - - appropriately decentralized! - - adopted the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto,” published a paper on the nascent “peer-to-peer electronic cash system," and created the first decentralized cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) starting in 2008.  Focusing now on the banking term “ledger,” the basic idea of cryptocurrency is to create a decentralized ledger (blockchain) that eliminates the need for banks - - although analyzing creditworthiness and extending loans would seem to be another matter.  Moreover, in a time of war, would all cryptocurrency value disappear along with destroyed electrical power grids?

      World economics have moved, like an economic Zeitgeist, beyond the use of gold or other commodities as the bases for monetary systems.  This Zeitgeist holds some commodities in especially low regard: For example, natural diamonds require complex valuation, possess low liquidity, and must compete with new techniques for the laboratory manufacture of diamonds.  There is the potential for a nearly instantaneous, disastrous decrease in the price of natural diamonds. 

      On the other hand, some commodity values can also be manipulated in in a way that increases their price.  Consider again the case of diamonds: Queen Victoria claimed that her sixtieth year as Queen warranted a “Diamond Jubilee” in 1897, despite older traditions setting the “diamond anniversary” as a seventy-fifth-year celebration.  Imagine how many more people - - being more likely to be alive 60 years after an event compared to 75 years after an event - - are around to demand more diamond gifts for special anniversaries.  In this case, supply couldn’t possibly match demand without a dramatic increase in price.  Having just established a South African diamond monopoly in the years leading up to 1897, prominent Victorian Cecil Rhodes was in a position to augment his wealth during Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee!  Likewise, it is not clear how the effective touting of any novelty, such as cryptocurrency, could avoid the potential for creating blips in valuation that could be cashed out before public awareness crystallizes.

      The economic Zeitgeist also recoils in horror from other monetary-system problems.  For example, monetary systems are menaced by the effective confiscation of wealth via thievery, unlimited taxation, and the limited attention spans of spreadsheet programmers purporting to provide monetary security.

      Cryptocurrency - - once understood in detail - - might possibly be favorably compared to commodity currencies as the basis for a monetary system.  Yet one wonders if the touting of cryptocurrency - - especially once it is understood in detail by only a small fraction of investors - - might lead to adverse consequences.  An analogy might be made to the 1929 stock market: Financial-securities enthusiasts wondered why everyone shouldn’t get rich in the stock markets.

      Economics can be viewed as the science of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.  Within economics, there exist the subcategories of microeconomics and of macroeconomics.  Microeconomics is the analysis of individual agents within markets.  Macroeconomics includes - - on the production side - - the analysis of land, labor, and capital.  On the distribution and consumption sides of macroeconomics, one studies the effects of explicit taxation and of explicitly redistributionist policies, as well as of inflation.  Operating, as it does, without benefit of explicit government legislation, inflation is a relatively “hidden” taxation or expropriation of resources.

      Another aspect of macroeconomics is the study of money, which is traditionally defined as a medium of exchange and a store of value.  (Some analysts think it necessary to add “unit of measure” to the definition of money.)  There are also problems in the coordination of economic policies among nation-states, including tariffs, international taxation and regulation, and foreign-exchange rates.

      In order to mitigate the effects of government taxation and inflationary policies, some investors have sought a parallel universe of money (cryptocurrency) that is not secured by governmental oversight and that is harder to tax.  Once older stores of value are entered into the cryptocurrency universe, legions of computer operators (“miners,” as in “data-miners”) incessantly calculate veracity codes and keep ownership records stable in the crypto-universe. This stability theoretically allows individuals to withdraw cryptocurrency in traditional forms when desired.  But “bad actors” caused “bank runs” in the old days, while some form of inattentive computer operation, as well as lost passwords, betoken failure in the newly evolved crypto-world.  The government has been obliged to initiate regulative legislation with the goal of making major failures less likely, but also rendering the cryptocurrency easier to tax.  In the long run, the government will extract as much value as it wants from its citizens, and the advantage of cryptocurrency will be evanescent.

      As one who struggles mightily to maintain a very few passwords, the current writer is the world’s last person who could possibly have any practical interest in cryptocurrency.  On a theoretical level, one might ask whether some computer service-providers could possibly find a substantial profit opportunity in performing the required interface and security services for cryptocurrency operation.  There will always be some fees to be paid (per processed interface transit and per each continuously updated ownership-account).  Those with relative advantage in computer skills - - excellence in firing one’s own synapses and controlling computers - - might possibly detect a business opportunity.  The present writer assumes that this could indeed be the case for some individuals who have a sufficiently low opportunity cost (i.e., who have few alternative activities that could generate greater value, economic or otherwise).  

      In the cryptocurrency universe, managers would like to recruit individuals (with low opportunity costs) to run its many required computers.  These same managers would also like to recruit investors who think that there are big cryptocurrency profits to be gained while the government learns how to regulate and to tax cryptocurrency just as completely as it does all other forms of economic life.  As of April 2026, the Wall Street capitalization of cryptocurrency firms is $300 billion.  As of December 2025, the total of all Wall Street capitalization is $72 trillion.  Thus, on this metric, cryptocurrency is approximately 0.4% of the total market capitalization on Wall Street.  Who knows what profit opportunities await those with sufficiently rapid-firing synapses and computer acumen?

      In our next blog posting on economics and cryptocurrency, we will examine some recent ideas about crypto-exchanges recently brought forward by the New York Attorney General.

No results found

Essay on Genesis, Ch. 4 - 11

After the moral failure of the original Genesis-2 humans, Adam and Eve, they were expelled from the Garden of Eden.  As stated in the fourth chapter of Genesis, the brothers Cain and Abel were born to Adam and Eve.  Living now beyond the friendly confines of the Garden of Eden, along with the thronging masses of the Genesis-1 creation, Cain and Abel plied different trades, becoming either a farmer (Cain) or a herder (Abel).

      Cain, a farmer, brought fruits of the soil as sacrifices; while Able, a herder, brought fat portions from the firstborn of his flock.  The Lord approved of Abel’s meat sacrifices, but not of Cain’s grain sacrifices.  One may only speculate that Cain’s attitude was insufficiently penitential.  Disgruntled, Cain slew Abel, whose “blood cried out to the Lord from the ground.”  Cain would henceforth become a restless wanderer with only God’s own “mark of Cain” preventing swift retribution in a violent world that aggressively recognized wrong-doing.  God decreed that anyone killing Cain would suffer vengeance seven times over.  Evidently, some elementary notions of justice had already come into existence by that time: After all, the disobedience of Adam and Eve had initiated an accumulation of moral knowledge based on perception, intuition and reflection.  After Abel died without issue, and when Adam was 130 years old (Gen. 5:3), Adam and Eve had another son, Seth.

      Cain found a marriage partner (evidently, from Genesis-1 stock) and sired Enoch.  Several generations later, Lamech was born into a consistently violent world.  Lamech commented that “if Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times” - - seeming to imply that he, Lamech, bore sin eleven times more deadly than Cain’s sin. 

      In this poisonous atmosphere, it seems to have become axiomatic that sacrifices should be made to the Lord.  Cain and Abel must have been aware that their parents were driven out of the Garden of Eden for disobedience; hence, one assumes that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel were made as atonements for this sin.  The level of sin and violence only increased from Cain’s time to Lamech’s time. 

      Genesis 4:26 concludes with the observation that, during this time of violence and need, “people began to call on the name of the Lord.”  This search for divine help prefigured the future prophecy of Joel, who spoke of “The Day of the Lord” or “The Great Day of Judgment” (Joel 2:28-32).  Cain lived shortly after 4000 B.C.  Joel lived in the 800’s B.C.  Thus, Joel’s proclamation occurred millennia after the times of Cain and Lamech.  Joel’s writing includes the passage “I (the LORD) will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions … and everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved … and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance.”

      The generations from Adam and Eve to Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth are mentioned in the fifth chapter of Genesis.  There were the ten strongly overlapping generations from Adam to Noah.  Among these antediluvian patriarchs, Adam is generation #1; while Noah is generation #10.  Seven of these ten patriarchs lived to be at least 900 years old at the time of their deaths.  Only the 10th generation (Noah) was born after the death of Adam, thereby becoming the only antediluvian patriarch whom Adam could not possibly have met.  We will assume here that Adam was created in 4000 B.C., splitting an uncertainty interval from 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.  (Click here for some background information on OT historical dating.  All dates in these analyses are approximate guides for ordering events.) 

      Upon data-mining chapters five through nine of Genesis, one infers that, from the creation of Adam to the death of Noah, there elapsed about two thousand years, extending from about 4000 B.C. to about 2000 B.C.  These two thousand years can be divided in at least two ways: First, from the creation of Adam to the Flood there were 1650 years, allowing for Noah’s outliving of the Flood by 350 years (Gen. 9:28).  Hence, the Flood occurred in 2350 B.C., and Noah died 350 years later.  Second, from the creation of Adam to the birth of Noah there were 1050 years, allowing for Noah’s 950 years of lifetime (Gen. 9:29) ending in about 2000 B.C.  Hence, Noah was born in 2950 B.C. and died 950 years later.  In the fifth chapter of Genesis, after Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.  Hence, his sons were born after 2450 B.C. and before the Flood in 2350 B.C.  Finally, we note that the patriarch Abram (later re-named Abraham) was born fairly close to the time that Noah died.  We assume here that Abram was born in 2000 B.C.

      Upon observing how great the wickedness of the human race had become (except for Noah and his sons), in the sixth chapter of Genesis the Lord regretted having made the human race.  The Lord then devised appropriate counter-measures, featuring the Flood and the Ark (Gen. 6:9 - 8:22).  The Lord then resolved, “Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”  These statements (Gen. 8:21 and 9:15) seem to indicate that non-aqueous punishment will be employed in case future behavior gets out of hand.  For the present, however, God establishes a rainbow covenant with mankind (Gen. 9:13).

      In the nineth chapter of Genesis, Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) were among those coming out of the Ark.  Their progeny became “scattered over the whole earth” (Gen. 9:19).  If the Flood is assumed to have been localized in or near the Middle East (e.g., the “Black Lake” destroying all impediments to becoming the “Black Sea”); then it would have naturally been expected that a mix of Noah’s sons and other, remotely-placed Flood survivors would have then repopulated the destroyed areas.  On the other hand, if the Flood had been truly universal except for the survivors in the Ark, then repopulation would have been a problem.  In that case, one would apply Origen’s “Principle of Absurdity,” namely, that whenever a Biblical passage implies something physically impossible, morally unacceptable, or religiously impious; then one reads that passage metaphorically or allegorically.

      Ultimately, Shem became the head of the Semites, who lived in western Asia.  (For some unknown linguistic reason, the expected name, “Shemites,“ was replaced by “Semites.”)  Ham became the head of peoples who lived in Africa.  Japheth became the head of peoples who lived in Europe and Northern Asia. 

      In Genesis 9:18-29 one reads the curious, lurid story of Noah, his sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), and Ham’s son, Canaan: After an evening of excessive wine-drinking by Noah, only Shem and Japheth “covered their father’s naked body.”  One might hypothesize that, for an insufficient participation in the covering of Noah, Ham was punished vicariously: His son, Canaan, was cursed to become a slave of Shem and Japheth.  Undoubtedly, other hypotheses are possible, but are not pursued here.

      In the tenth chapter of Genesis, a “Table of the Nations” descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth is presented.  Canaan is now mentioned as the fourth son of Ham (Gen. 10:6).  Another of Ham’s descendants, Nimrod, had a kingdom that was once centered on Uruk (Gen. 10:10) and that played a role in the Gilgamesh narrative. 

      In the eleventh chapter of Genesis, the narrative of the Tower of Babel is presented, followed by a more tightly focused line of descent from Shem to Terah and his son, Abram (among other family members).

      The Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9) was one instance of a type of architecture known as a ziggurat, which is a monumental, stepped-pyramidal, terraced building that reaches up into the sky.  Such a “skyscraper” was intended to be a bridge to the heavens and to the idol-gods such as Marduk of Babylonia.  The Tower of Babel purported to show that humans could do anything, thereby “making a name for themselves,” but also establishing - - independently of the Greek tradition - - that “hubris breeds nemesis.”  God destroyed this hubris by confusing the common language of the humans into many different, incompatible languages.  Thus, over-confident people were scattered over the face of the earth.

      By “a more tightly focused line of descent” (Gen. 11:10-32), we mean “omitting distant cousins.”  Terah and Abram (among other family members) originally lived in Ur of the Chaldeans (southeast Mesopotamia).  Without any divine intervention, Terah decided to move his family from Ur to Canaan.  Here, “Canaan” refers to an area near the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, and not to a son of Ham.  However, Terah went no further than northwest Mesopotamia, to the city named Harran.  Here, “Harran” refers to a city, and not to Abram’s deceased brother, Haran.  Abram will be featured in the next blog in this series.

No results found

Addendum to the Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1 - 3

This addendum is meant, first, to provide a more succinct statement of the Biblical concept of “in the beginning.”  Second, additional paragraphs are supplied on the moral fall of Adam and Eve and their physical banishment from the Garden of Eden.  Third, the distinction between Genesis-1 creation and Genesis-2 creation is more fully explored.  Finally, a separate section of Internet links is provided in order to facilitate navigation among eight recent blog postings on the history and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective. 

      ‘(1) We previously indicated that the first Hebrew word in the book of Genesis is rendered in English as “in the beginning.”  This word occurs five times in the Old Testament, according to the “Bible-hub” Internet resource.  The latter four such occurrences of “in the beginning” clearly mean “early in the reign” of some king, indicating temporal priority and the idea that physical causes precede physical effects.  The first occurrence of “in the beginning,” however, refers to logical or absolute priority.  In logical priority, premises must be defined or understood “before” any necessary conclusions may be drawn.  In other words, temporal priority is empirical (based on the structure of the external world); whereas logical priority is conceptual (based on the structure of reason).

      ‘(2) The third chapter of Genesis deals with the Fall of Man, which in turn calls forth the Wrath of God in Romans 1:18-32.  In the NIV we read that “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people” (2011) or “of men” (1978).  There is human culpability for this spiritual malfeasance, because God’s power and nature “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”  The fallout from such godlessness and wickedness is so obvious that it can in some cases be seen as merely empirical data, requiring no special theological treatment other than the summary doctrine of “total depravity.”

      We note in passing, based on the Bible-hub Internet tool, that the Greek word, anthropos (anthropon in the genitive case), is the common source for the two NIV translations of “people” (2011) and “men” (1978) in Romans 1:18.  Anthropos has as its possible meanings, applicable to both males and females, the following: (1) that which is “man-faced,” (2) a concrete human being, (3) a general or generic human being, and (4) an “indefinite” human being (or a “someone”).

      There is real ugliness or “aesthetic strangeness” involved when one is asked to make a switch in familiar Biblical linguistics from “wickedness of men” to “wickedness of people,” despite the facts that Biblical Greek is static and that anthropos has meanings applicable to both male and female.  Was the third chapter of Genesis incomprehensible until someone figured out that the “Fall of Man” was really “The Fall of People”?  Was the Shorter Westminster Catechism unfathomable for hundreds of years until someone deciphered the meaning of “What is the chief end of man?” as being “What is the chief end of people?”  There is today a real issue about the privilege of having a “dead language” in which to register Biblical texts and eternal truths.  Such an issue did not arise in the times of Wyclif and Luther, et al., who strove for the accessibility of Biblical texts in everyday languages - - which is a different issue.  One wishes for accessibility without cynical, rhetorical manipulation.

      ‘(3) Near the end of Genesis-1 creation, in Genesis 1:26, the NIV-2011 contains “Let us make mankind in our image.”  (“Us” and “our” refer to the Trinity.)  The NIV-1978 contains “Let us make man in our image.”  The Hebrew source for these “mankind or man” translations is “adam,” or “he who is taken from the earth.”  At the interface between Genesis-1 creation and Genesis-2 creation, in Genesis 2:1, both NIV translations contain “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”  Continuing on to Genesis 2:5, the NIV-2011 states that “There was no one to work the ground.”  The NIV-1978 states that “There was no man to work the ground.”  The labor shortage thus implied seems to have been one reason for instituting Genesis-2 creation.

      In Genesis 2:7, both the NIV-1978 and the NIV-2011 contain “The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”  The “breath of life” in this context (i.e., in Genesis-2 creation but not in Genesis-1 creation) seems to refer to the spiritual content of human existence.  Spirituality is also suggested by the last part of the Schlachter 2000 German translation of Genesis 2:7: “So wurde der Mensch eine lebendige Seele,” where “eine lebendige Seele” means “a living soul.”  Thus, a fundamental quarrel emerges in the translation of the last two words of Genesis 2:7.

       It would appear to be necessary, in the analysis of Genesis 2:7, to declare one’s colors regarding the translation of the Hebrew word that is transliterated either as nefesh or nepes in the Bible-hub Internet tool.  Either the NIV (1978 or 2011) rendition is correct regarding “a living being,” or else the Schlachter 2000 rendition is correct regarding “a living soul.”  In Genesis 2:7, the word at issue, nefesh (or nepes), is the penultimate word of the Hebrew text and the basis for the final word of the English text. 

      The “being / soul” issue in Genesis 2:7 has been previously analyzed.  In the Wall Street Journal of April 5, 2019, Blaire French (a lecturer at the University of Virginia) wrote an article entitled “Putting ‘Soul’ Back in the Hebrew Bible.”  French wrote that “To exclude ‘soul’ as a definition for nefesh because it sounds too Christian does not do justice to the original text.”  Contra French, the NIV translators appear to be making Aristotle’s point that even plants have souls, which are simply “principles of life” and not a big deal for humanists.  Such translators do not scruple to remove “soul” from Genesis 2:7. In so doing they would appear to be taking a “low view” of the word nefesh as it was originally used in the context of Genesis 2:7.  The present writer endorses the “living soul” translation for the ending of Genesis 2:7.

      While summarizing - - in a somewhat speculative mode - - the apparent necessity for an additional Genesis-2 creation beyond the Genesis-1 creation, one might say that a genus (homo) with a certain number of species (perhaps more than one) had arisen in the Genesis-1 creation.  However, at least one of God’s intended species for that genus had not yet appeared by the time of the completion of Genesis-1 creation.  Ultimately, Genesis-2 creation occurred, featuring the venue of the Garden of Eden with its fateful ground rules, as well as at least one addition to the list of the species in the genus homo.  

      On the view, presented here, of Genesis (Chapter 1) creation complemented by Genesis (Chapter 2) creation, a new species originated in the Garden of Eden in Chapter 2.  The new species descended from first members named Adam and Eve.  Depending upon one’s taste, this new species could be attributed to a divine decision or to an unpredictable, stray cosmic ray that caused a decisive genetic mutation.  This theory of a bipartite creation has the advantage that Genesis-1 creation had evidently provided sufficient species with potential marriage partners for the descendants of Adam and Eve.  All species seem to have freely intermingled outside of the Garden of Eden.  This theory presupposes that the scientific fields of DNA and archaeology are valid modes of inquiry compatible with Biblical accounts of creation.  For example, one sometimes reads of studies of the percentages of Neanderthal DNA among various historical populations of homo sapiens.

Eight Recent Blog Postings on the History and Philosophy of Religion

Previous Blog in 2026

‘(1) Mar. 9, 2026: Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1-3

2025 Blogs

‘(2) Dec. 8, 2025: History of Religion and Timeline-Essay 2.2

‘(3) Nov. 10, 2025: History of Religion and Timeline-Essay 2.1

‘(4) Aug. 22, 2025: Philosophy of Religion and Background-Essay 1

‘(5) July 21, 2025: Commenting on Biblical Texts

2024 Blogs

‘(6) Dec. 3, 2024: Conceptualizing Free Will

2023 Blogs

‘(7) Feb. 6, 2023: Conceptualizing Secularity (2): Ancient to Modern

‘(8) Jan. 30, 2023: Conceptualizing Secularity (1): Definitions

No results found

Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1 - 3

The first Hebrew word, call it W1, in the First Book of Moses is translated into English (NIV) in the book of Genesis as “in the beginning.”  According to the Bible-hub Interlinear web resource, W1 occurs only four other times in the Old Testament, where it is translated as “early in the reign of …”  If one assumes that the creation of the universe deserves its own sense for W1, then we might postulate that W1 can bear either of two senses: first, as an absolute or logical “beginning” of time itself or, second, as a “relatively early time near the beginning of a phase, process or reign elsewhere defined.”  In the case of Genesis 1:1, W1 is taken to refer to absolute or logical priority: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

  Analysis requires that we seek to remove the quotation marks surrounding the word “beginning” in the phrase “the ‘beginning’ of time itself.”  Let A be the phrase “the ‘beginning’ of time itself.”  Let B be the phrase “time itself.”  By saying that “A is logically prior to B,” we mean that B must be understood in terms that include A (as a matter of knowledge); as well as that “if B exists, then A exists” (as a matter of ontology).  It would seem that the offending quotation marks can indeed be dropped.

In contrast, consider the events C and D.  By saying that C is temporally prior to D, we are saying something about four-dimensional space-time that is both consistent with special relativity and informative regarding the so-called “time-stamps” associated with C and D.  When relativistic effects are negligible, then “C being temporally prior to D” means that “the time value associated with C is less than the time value associated with D.

In English, the absolute (logical) versus temporal distinction seems reasonable: We may say things like “In (or at) the beginning of the war, each side had ten warships” (absolute beginning).  We might also say that “In the beginning of the war, each side failed repeatedly before finally launching ten warships” (relatively early in a temporal process, or during some imprecisely defined “days of yore”).

In German, the same absolute (logical) versus temporal distinction is indeed picked up in the Schlachter 2000 translation of Genesis 1:1, but to the opposite effect: In all German usage known to the current writer, “Am Anfang” could potentially bear either of the aforementioned two senses.  However, Schlachter renders Genesis 1:1 as “Im Anfang,” which seems to refer exclusively to the sense of “relatively early in a process.”  Generally, the present writer expects reliable translation, good German, and helpful and accurate notes in Schlacher.  But in this instance, online Luther resources verify that Martin Luther translated Genesis 1:1 as “Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde.”

“In the beginning,” the logical necessity of Genesis-1 creation was about to be embraced (comprehended in thought).  The earth and the deep (the sea below and the heavens above) were desolate (formless), empty, and dark (Gen. 1:2); as well as seeming metaphorically to cry out for some ex-nihilo creation.  The Spirit of God was “hovering above the waters,” setting the stage for God to proclaim a six-fold “Let there be …”  On each of the Six Days of Creation (Gen. 1:3-31), God would “speak some aspect of the world into existence.”

In the Six Days of Creation portrayed by Genesis 1:3-31; six differing, overlapping, non-consecutive time intervals of universal creation and development occur.  This six-fold plan of creation featured the following: There was to be initial radiation, inorganic phase separation (solid - liquid - gas), organic plant life, astronomical development of stars, organic animal life in the water and in the air, and organic land-based animal life including mankind.  On the Sixth Day, creatures that could be referred to as man, mankind, Menschen, or “generic adam” (he who is taken from the earth) appear in Gen. 1:26-27.  In the words of Gen. 2:1, “So were the heavens and the earth completed in their vast array.”

Tto the nearest integer multiple of five billion, the universe’s inaugural radiative blast (Big Bang) has dominated about fifteen billion years of universal development; and the declaration “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3) can therefore only refer to one metaphorical day, namely, the First Day of Creation.  Moreover, there is no expectation that - - for example - - organic plant life (Day 3) must develop before stellar development (Day 4) can occur.  The developments or tasks envisioned by the Six Days of Creation are only logical prerequisites for the overall creative process.  This reading is consistent with a Biblical understanding in which metaphor and literal interpretation peacefully coexist.

Among the events of the Sixth Day of Creation in Gen. 1:26-27, God is said either to have “made mankind in our (Trinitarian) image” or to have “created mankind in His (God’s) own image.”  However, He had not yet explicitly “added form” to the dust of the earth, which is the material cause of mankind (Gen. 2:7).  Indeed, in Gen. 2:5, no Mensch was even available to cultivate newly available agricultural land.

In view of the labor shortage appearing in Gen. 2:5, it would seem to be more appropriate to redefine the term “mankind” in Gen. 1:26-27 as “the set of all hominids.”  Then the subset of all hominids, referred to in Gen. 2:7, can be relabeled as man, mankind, Menschen, or “generic adam.”  This subset of hominids refers, at first, to Adam and Eve, when they lived in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8).  Later, upon being driven out of the Garden after the Fall of Man (Gen. 3:7-24), Adam and Eve would also have descendants falling into this subset.  Man, mankind, Menschen, or “generic adam” have a prescribed, restrictive relationship with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).  In contrast, while the members of the set of all hominids may have logged an enormous number of travel miles during epic adventures accessible to archaeology, these migrations did not earn all hominids a special relationship to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The old-earth timeline portrayed by the Days of Genesis 1 differs from the young-earth timeline developed in Genesis 2.  (See the blog post of Nov. 10, 2025.)  Genesis 1 deals with the six metaphorical days of Biblical creation.  These are not six intervals of physical time, but rather are representations of six tasks logically required to have been accomplished before the whole panoply of heavens and earth could finally be assembled and proclaimed to have been “completed in all their vast array.”  Internal to each of these six metaphorical days, there may be temporal processes; but, overall, there seems to be no unifying time allowing sequential completion of all six tasks.  In contrast, Genesis 2 only begins its account of mankind and the Garden of Eden after the “heavens-and-earth completion” proclaimed by Gen. 2:1.  Evidently, the Big Bang, planetary formation, and hundreds of thousands of years’ worth of archeological data had all started in the remote past, long before the Genesis 2 story.

In Genesis 2:10-14, the four rivers flowing in the vicinity of the Garden of Eden are mentioned: the Pishon (near the land of Havilah), the Gihon (near the land of Cush in southeastern Mesopotamia, not in Africa), the Tigris (east of Ashur, or ancient Assyria), and the Euphrates (no data here, but it is the river flowing through ancient Babylon).  Owing to radical landscape changes due to the later, catastrophic flood, the locations and flow directions of these rivers do not sound entirely familiar.

“Adam” and “Eve” as proper names appear only gradually in the Book of Genesis.  For example, the NIV English translation of “adam” (he who is taken from the earth) changes from “a generic man” to “the particular man named Adam” in Gen. 3:20.  Next, Adam chooses to name his wife “Eve.”  Thus, Genesis 3:20 seems, momentarily, to be the first verse with both Adam and Eve mentioned as proper names.  Regrettably, however, the Schlachter 2000 German translation still uses Mensch (generic adam) as the person doing the wife-naming in Gen. 3:20.  Eve, or Eva, means life, living, or the mother of all the descendants of Adam.

In Gen. 3:1-6, the tempting snake was more deceptive than any other animal in the fields and was therefore capable of inducing Eve (who also induced Adam) into eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  In Gen. 3:22, God deplores the fact that man now knows good and evil, because man now needs only to reach out and to eat from the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever.  In order to avoid this final, forbidden step (Gen. 3:23-24), God first banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  God then strategically placed cherubim (angelic creatures) and a flaming sword to guard against, and presumably to prevent, mankind’s return from exile back into the vicinity (Garden of Eden) of the tree of life.

No results found