Creationists: The Gold of Ophir was Good. What of it?

[busterdog]

The Gold of Ophir is a brain teaser. What is it doing in Genesis?

Gen 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

This passage could seem to those making the wrong assumptions about the text, to be an artifact, and really of no particular significance to the key events and the central theses of the Word. If one assumes the contrary, of what significance might this be?

I was stumped for a long time. The reference seems almost casual, but that obviously is a very dangerous way to think about such things, particularly in the place where this reference is found.

So, all you science wonks, lighten up. Let's talk economics and filthy lucre.

I will give a couple of hints: 1. the underlying concept was relevant when Jesus was in Jerusalem, continues to be very relevant to current events and is even implicated in the Financial Reform Bill; 2. one word: monopoly (There is a shorter word that gets close to the essence of the latter in this context, and would probably give it away. Hopefully I won't have to drop it.)

Who wants to play?

 

[Dark_Lite]

This has what to do with origins theology?

 

[busterdog]

Here are three data points:

1. The gold is "good" in Genesis -- ie, it has inherent value. Many would argue the point, since, unlike silver, gold has relatively few applications, except as a monetary metal or decoration. (Silver is one of the most useful substances on the planet. Interestingly, the Word is most often compared to silver and the people of God more often compared to gold.)

2. Jesus cleansed the Temple of moneychangers. The issue is again a question of inherent value. Temple tax was only payable in a certain form, a type of coin. The coins were monopolized and the money changers set the exchange rate. Allegedly the issue was idolatry in the form of coins, which is a rather cheap excuse. The question is really, what is value before God? It has much to do with the heart of the giver, which did not command a premium before the Temple moneychangers, apparently. But also, if God establishes gold as inherently valuable and gives it to all people, the manipulation of a gift for profit is an abomination.

3. The mark of the beast is apparently a fiat currency, or currency system. Regardless of whether it is gold backed or not, the question is manipulation and arbitrary assignments of value to profit the few. The mark of the beast is a system without a level playing field, apparently, since it is essentially to be allowed into the market, to buy or sell. Things are not received in this system simply because they have inherent value. A fiat system, strictly speaking, is one where an asset is defined at law as having value, regardless of whether it has inherent value. The more insidious side of fiat systems is whether competition is allowed. That is, are competing currencies allowed or are they suppressed? If one accepts this aspect of a fiat system, one can see the equivalence between a fiat system and a monopolistic system. Whether one monopolizes the gold market to control currency or simply establishes an absolute fiat system, the effect is the same.

Capice?

 

[theFijian]

...continues to be very relevant to current events and is even implicated in the Financial Reform Bill

You had me up until just there.

 

[juvenissun]

The Gold of Ophir is a brain teaser. What is it doing in Genesis?

Gen 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

This passage could seem to those making the wrong assumptions about the text, to be an artifact, and really of no particular significance to the key events and the central theses of the Word. If one assumes the contrary, of what significance might this be?

I was stumped for a long time. The reference seems almost casual, but that obviously is a very dangerous way to think about such things, particularly in the place where this reference is found.

So, all you science wonks, lighten up. Let's talk economics and filthy lucre.

I will give a couple of hints: 1. the underlying concept was relevant when Jesus was in Jerusalem, continues to be very relevant to current events and is even
implicated in the Financial Reform Bill; 2. one word: monopoly (There is a shorter word that gets close to the essence of the latter in this context, and would probably give it away. Hopefully I won't have to drop it.)

Who wants to play?

I could not see what you said at all. And I am not sure what do the verses mean either. Here is my thoughts:

Natural gold does have differences in the grades of gold. If so, it would be reasonable to describe the gold occurrence as good or not good. For example, gold in large nuggets would be better than tiny scattered grains of gold sand.

Also, gold is not found in most places, but is only formed during special geological process. "Good gold" can certainly imply some natural environment of the locality.

And, I still do not understand why is gold so special to human.

 

[busterdog]

And, I still do not understand why is gold so special to human.

Well, God is defining something as having inherent value. Man essentially by his system denies the power thereof and manipulates what was intended to be a gift to mankind.

I don't think it matters why so much, at least for the sake of this issue. The point is that there was something that was "valuable" in the same way that gold is valuable now (you maybe even could call it money), even before the Fall. I doubt any money was required in Eden. I think that is really beside the point. But, God even said something about gold that He said about the things ordered in the several days of creation. I think it is worth noting when God goes out of his way to call something "Good".

Now, from modern critical method perspective, the literature is folksy and has these odd, intriguing artifacts. Us creationists are more likely to connect the dots and see the patterns as intentional.

Consider that the Bible starts with a statement that Gold is good and ends with fiat currency system destroyed by God himself. So, in Genesis, God gives man what is valuable. In Revelation, man says "Inherent value is not enough -- you can't eat unless you buy into our system." Much of revelation is about the "trading" or traffic in "souls of men" and poverty. What God intended to be His gift is hoarded, monopolized, manipulated and essentially robbed from civilization in general. Further, man, in the "mark of the beast" presumes to replace things of inherent value with a fiat currency system, where man is the arbiter of value, and more specifically, a very few men at the top.

At the very end of history, gold is the same as pavement. That would seem to make it relatively of low value, which is fine, and I don't think it changes the thesis.

What else is special about this manipulated system? Jesus is violent on two occasions: 1. cleansing the Temple and 2. returning to fight the system of the satan on earth. Both examples are not simply issues of greed. Mammon is not the god of greed, but appears more precisely to be a principality governing a manipulated system. It is more a question of manipulating people by currency than it is just greed in general.

 

[busterdog]

This has what to do with origins theology?

Its in the creation account.

 

[busterdog]

You had me up until just there.

If you google the Financial Reform Bill you will see a number of reputable sources, such as the Texas Bankers Association criticizing the bill on a number of distinctive features:

1. More secrecy (FOIA no longer applies to the SEC, which is insanity)

2. Consolidation of financial control in more private or so-called quasi-public authorities.

3. Giving more regulatory power to the same people who allowed for the creation of too many bad loans and trade in unregulated and fabulously excessive financial instruments. The Federal Reserve pushed the loans that failed. The regulation of derivates (a market with a notional value in the 100s of trillions) won't even happen until 2020, and yet these instruments have destroyed economies like Greece and a number of the States.

The tendency is the consolidation of power into private hands, meaning the Federal Reserve and other central bankers. These entities are at the heart of the fiat currency system.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Its in the creation account.

Origins Theology is about the theology of how we got here, hence the name "origins." Just because something is in the creation account doesn't mean it has to do with Origins Theology. This is just a conspiracy theory that happens to quote from Genesis. Go to the Eschatology board. That's where these things go.

 

[Assyrian]

Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions
H2896
טוב
ṭôb
BDB Definition:

1) good, pleasant, agreeable (adjective)

1a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
1b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
1c) good, excellent (of its kind)
1d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
1e) good, appropriate, becoming
1f) better (comparative)
1g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man’s sensuous nature)
1h) good understanding (of man’s intellectual nature)
1i) good, kind, benign
1j) good, right (ethical)
​

2) a good thing, benefit, welfare (noun masculine)

2a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
2b) good things (collective)
2c) good, benefit
2d) moral good
​

3) welfare, benefit, good things (noun feminine)

3a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
3b) good things (collective)
3c) bounty
​

Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H2895
Same Word by TWOT Number: 793a

Hmmm... doesn't say that 'good' means a good basis for a monetary system. You might have a stronger case arguing it means gold is good for welfare or benefits

 

[busterdog]

Origins Theology is about the theology of how we got here, hence the name "origins." Just because something is in the creation account doesn't mean it has to do with Origins Theology. This is just a conspiracy theory that happens to quote from Genesis. Go to the Eschatology board. That's where these things go.

Everyone has an opinion.

Can money have an "origin", or must it only have an end?

This is where it goes.

As for conspiracy theories, you are going to have to do better. This is basic economics. The orthodox academics are with me this time, along with a significant portion of Congress, former budget directors and comptrollers general and the late great Uncle Milton Friedman himself. Theologically they may have little to say, but two things are clear: 1. this is a system that threatens unbridled, tyranical power over currency; and 2. it stands the idea of real value on its head.

 

[busterdog]

Hmmm... doesn't say that 'good' means a good basis for a monetary system. You might have a stronger case arguing it means gold is good for welfare or benefits

I never expect there to be a strong case in a jury system. I just do my job and present it. I am just working for pro bono here.

The case is that the history of money begins with God-ordained value and ends with its opposite in a tyranical human system. If one believes that this is mere happenstance or coincidence, well, that is one opinion.

 

[Cabal]

Humans like shiny things.

That's about the level of it, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[busterdog]

Humans like shiny things.

That's about the level of it, as far as I'm concerned.

At some point, when things tend in a certain direction, we get to make a diagnosis. If you look at the symptoms of the monetary system, what it values, what it suppresses, what it exaggerates wildly and where it allows itself such enormous liberality and immunity from oversight, you see what I summarize: real value is turned on its head. How else do you get 100s of trillions of dollars in notional value in derivative instruments?

You can put aside the eschatology if you wish, but the trend is away from inherent value (the gold of Ophir) and toward disallowing things of real value in trade (the mark of the beast).

There comes a point when, for example, people who tend to drink more than they tend to get to certain responsibilities represent a trend. After a while, we call that addiction, though sometimes there is more art than precision in making that call. But, in terms of currency, there is a clear trend. It is not crazy to apply the rule out diagnosis.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Everyone has an opinion.

Can money have an "origin", or must it only have an end?

This is where it goes.

Everyone can have an opinion, but in this case the forum's description supports mine: "Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums."

This topic has nothing to do with creationism or evolution.

As for conspiracy theories, you are going to have to do better. This is basic economics. The orthodox academics are with me this time, along with a significant portion of Congress, former budget directors and comptrollers general and the late great Uncle Milton Friedman himself. Theologically they may have little to say, but two things are clear: 1. this is a system that threatens unbridled, tyranical power over currency; and 2. it stands the idea of real value on its head.

Conspiracies are always obvious to those who see them, just never to anyone else.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, God is defining something as having inherent value. Man essentially by his system denies the power thereof and manipulates what was intended to be a gift to mankind.

I don't think it matters why so much, at least for the sake of this issue. The point is that there was something that was "valuable" in the same way that gold is valuable now (you maybe even could call it money), even before the Fall. I doubt any money was required in Eden. I think that is really beside the point. But, God even said something about gold that He said about the things ordered in the several days of creation. I think it is worth noting when God goes out of his way to call something "Good".

Now, from modern critical method perspective, the literature is folksy and has these odd, intriguing artifacts. Us creationists are more likely to connect the dots and see the patterns as intentional.

Consider that the Bible starts with a statement that Gold is good and ends with fiat currency system destroyed by God himself. So, in Genesis, God gives man what is valuable. In Revelation, man says "Inherent value is not enough -- you can't eat unless you buy
into our system." Much of revelation is about the "trading" or traffic in "souls of men" and poverty. What God intended to be His gift is hoarded, monopolized, manipulated and essentially robbed from civilization in general. Further, man, in the "mark of the beast" presumes to replace things of inherent value with a fiat currency system, where man is the arbiter of value, and more specifically, a very few men at the top.

At the very end of history, gold is the same as pavement. That would seem to make it relatively of low value, which is fine, and I don't think it changes the thesis.

What else is special about this manipulated system? Jesus is violent on two occasions: 1. cleansing the Temple and 2. returning to fight the system of the satan on earth. Both examples are not simply issues of greed. Mammon is not the god of greed, but appears
more precisely to be a principality governing a manipulated system. It is more a question of manipulating people by currency than it is just greed in general.

Thanks for explaining your point three times. I start to see it.

Yes, it could be significant that God only says good to the gold, but not to the other two treasures in the verse. To me, the process of forming a gold deposit is simpler than that made the other two material.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, it could be significant that God only says good to the gold, but not to the other two treasures in the verse. To me, the process of forming a gold deposit is simpler than that made the other two material.

So the implication is that the creation was not as perfect as some people think? The Hebrew doesn't make any distinction in the verse though, it simply lists bdellium and onyx after telling us about the quality of the gold.

And the gold of that land is good, the bdellium and onyx stones.

If there is a contrast implied by saying the gold is good, it is more likely found in the qualification given to the gold, the gold of that land is good, implying gold in other places might not have been so good or that quality of gold was an issue in the ANE, perhaps problems with impurities or iron pyrite...

...anyone for Baghdad batteries and electroplating?

 

[busterdog]

So the implication is that the creation was not as perfect as some people think? The Hebrew doesn't make any distinction in the verse though, it simply lists bdellium and onyx after telling us about the quality of the gold.

And the gold of that land is good, the bdellium and onyx stones.

If there is a contrast implied by saying the gold is good, it is more likely found in the qualification given to the gold, the gold of that land is good, implying gold in other places might not have been so good or that quality of gold was an issue in the ANE, perhaps problems with impurities or iron pyrite...

...anyone for Baghdad batteries and electroplating?

It is difficult to glean the intent just from looking at this verse. Juve initially put an emphasis on relative quality. That sounds like an issue that could be clarified in the original hebrew. Maybe.

If you remember that neat part of the movie "Stargate" where they take define two points in space to yield a trajectory, it may be that this verse is just one point.

However, if God says something is good, maybe you just take that at face value. I suppose the idea of good for what becomes implied however. To the readers of Moses, maybe it affirms their understanding of what they did in building their own battery, as some call the ark -- not that I am biting on that idea. This first mention may be kind of one point with no direction defined.

However, if the ending point of history is corrupt money, now you have a rather interesting data point and direction and context for gold in its first appearance in the Bible.

The nice thing about the gold at the beginning of the Bible and at the end (streets paved with gold) is that they are just good, nice, beautiful, fun to have around, etc. All the gold in between is tribute, ransom, manipulation, with some ornamentation and offerings to God by a desperate people.

 

[busterdog]

Everyone can have an opinion, but in this case the forum's description supports mine: "Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums."

This topic has nothing to do with creationism or evolution.



Conspiracies are always obvious to those who see them, just never to anyone else.

Oh good, let's do creation science, as in creation of money.

And, let's do history.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

Gullibility, as is in dismissing history to satisfy one's world view, is defined much the same as conspiracies.

And, it is the stock in trade of political leaders, particularly tyrants.

 

[shernren]

The argument is typically silly from beginning to end.

First off, what is the "gold of Ophir"? Good as it may be, it is either gold or not gold. If it is gold, then by your own admission it has little intrinsic value beyond being rare and shiny. Any gold-backed system is by definition giving monetary value to a metal which ultimately sees little practical use. If anything, Fort Knox seems a little too much like the barns of the rich fool (who hoarded his wealth instead of being rich to God) for my liking.

In that case, your argument has gone around and kicked itself in the nards, for here is God saying that something which has little intrinsic value is "good" in the sense of being a suitable foundation for a monetary system. Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Or, the "gold of Ophir" isn't actually gold, in which case you can't take the Bible literally and the creationist ship sinks anyway.

Secondly, the "mark of the beast" of Revelations 13:16-17 in no way entails any particular financial system. It is simply nothing more (and nothing less) than a way to systematically exclude the people of God from commerce and trade. What exactly this commerce and trade is, Revelations refuses to tell us. Is the beast's economy capitalist or socialist? Regionally protectionist or globalized? Planned or free? Regulated or deregulated? Revelations doesn't tell us, and we don't need to know. The point isn't that the beast's financial system is X, and God's financial system is Y; the point is that the beast's financial system, whatever it may be, will be fiercely hostile towards Christians.

And that's why I say, not everybody who takes the Bible seriously will take it literally, and not everybody who takes the Bible literally is taking it seriously. This is a fine example of the latter in action.