. †. Gen 2:11 . .The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah,
The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.
The Hebrew word for Havilah is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which means circular. It's not only a place-name but also a person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29) which may indicate that the land of Havilah was named after an antediluvian individual who settled in that area.
Place-names such as Havilah and Cush prior to the Flood are impossible to site geographically; especially since the author used the present tense in his verbs, indicating that the rivers branching off the Eden river flowed to the areas he mentioned during his own times; which were antediluvian.
†. Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)
Again, the author used the present tense of a verb. The gold "is" good, not was good— strongly suggesting the author actually lived in the period he wrote about.
Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various trees. The author could have been referring to amber; a hard yellowish to brownish translucent fossil resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making ornamental objects like beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses used to describe the color of manna in Num 11:7.
Lapis lazuli is a semiprecious stone that is usually a rich azure blue and is essentially a complex silicate often with spangles of iron pyrites — a.k.a. lapis.
Isn't all gold good? Well; some gold is better than other kinds of gold. It exists in nature in more than one form. In some instances gold is powdered, and mixed with the soil like in the Sacramento area of California. That kind, known as placer gold, is not what you might call good gold because it's such a chore to separate it from the dirt. Panning, and dredging, and sluice boxes seem to work best for that kind of mining.
Then there is hard rock gold. It's embedded in stone which must be blasted and tunneled and crushed and refined to extract the gold from ore. More hard work; and lots of overburden.
And there is what you might call the best gold— nugget gold. Great big 'ol chunks of pure metal. All you have to do with that is pound it into something nice. Some jewelers don't even bother to change its shape or melt it down. They make jewelry out of it just the way it is. I once saw a necklace of nuggets in the Museum of Natural History in San Diego. Whew . . nothing since has stirred such passionate avarice in my soul as the sight of the dull metallic burnish of that highly valued ornament.
†. Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush.
The Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with both a region of Arabia and the present-day land of Ethiopia. But the exact geographic site of the Cush of antediluvian days is impossible to know. If it's the same, then we can be pretty sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological events in the distant past because it is now impossible for any river in Ethiopia to connect in any way at all with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today's world.
C.L.I.F.F. /
Last edited by Webers_Home; 11th August 2009 at 09:45 AM.
. †. Gen 2:14a . .The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of Asshur.
According to Assyrian monuments, the Tigris was known to the post Flood ancients as the Chiddekel, or the Hiddekel. Asshur was located in modern-day Iraq south of Mosul on the western bank of the Tigris river in between the Great Zab and the Little Zab rivers.
†. Gen 2:14b . . And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The Tigris and Euphrates today headwater not too far from Elazig Turkey; flowing roughly (very roughly) parallel to each other from out of Turkey, past Syria and Mesopotamia, and down into modern-day Iraq before joining together and emptying into the Persian Gulf.
The general picture in Genesis 2 is that of a major watercourse (the Eden River) feeding an immense aqua system supplying water to a very large geographic area comprising parts of Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nubia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iraq. It would appear that the EdenRiver itself head-watered possibly in what the world today knows as Russia; but it is impossible to tell exactly where it came from because that region no longer generates a south flowing monster river system such as the one from Eden described in Genesis 2.
The third and fourth rivers no longer connect to a larger river that elsewhere branches off and flows to Ethiopia. It's pretty obvious from the author's geographical descriptions that the world's current topography didn't exist prior to the Flood. The antediluvian world was shaped quite different than the one we live in now. The Tigris and Euphrates of today are but remnants of an ancient irrigation system that at one time made the entire MidEast a very beautiful and fertile region.
†. Gen 2:15 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it.
The word for tend is from shamar (shaw-mar') and means: to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.
Actually, Adam had some pretty easy responsibilities. For one thing, he didn't have to do any plowing or planting. Everything he needed was already growing when he arrived. All he had to do was nurture his food supplies, protect them from wild animals, and they would be enough to take care of him for a good while to come.
Meanwhile, there was schooling to look after and he would need plenty. Among the first things God needed to teach Adam was a language; and most especially how to make fire. There's really no telling how long the Adams lived in the garden, but I think it was quite a while before they were evicted to fend for themselves. During their tenure, God was very likely in the process of teaching them how to survive just like we ourselves put a priority on teaching our own kids how to take care of themselves so they can go out on their own.
Although Adam and his wife were very likely created all grown up physically, I think at first, age wise, they were very immature— like preschoolers and young adolescents; and very definitely benefited by senior advice and guidance from their Divine mentor.
C.L.I.F.F. /
Last edited by Webers_Home; 12th August 2009 at 11:48 AM.
. †. Gen 2:16a . . And the Lord God commanded the man,
Eve was absent during this exchange. Although present in Adam's genes, she wasn't actually viable and walking around on her own yet. Other than this verse, there's no record of God personally commanding anybody else about the trees but just Adam. So Eve very likely heard this mandate second hand, just like we all today get God's teachings second hand from scholars, writers, translators, and preachers.
The problem with hearsay evidence is that it can be challenged; and often with success. People who don't actually hear God's testimony from God himself can't be sure something hasn't been lost in the process (or worse: something added). Maybe scribes changed some important things along the way because they didn't like the way the text looked when they got it from previous scribes. Plus, none of the authors, nor their original autographs, even exist anymore so there is no way of knowing if what exists today isn't folklore and/or extensive revisions. Maybe the Bible is just a great big hoax after all because it's very old and who knows anymore where it really came from anyway?
As incredible as it may sound, I have dialogued with people who actually believe in a Jesus, but not the New Testament's Jesus. Why? Because they feel the New Testament's Jesus is the wrong one. So they have another Jesus; a nicer Jesus who doesn't believe in capital punishment and Hell-fire. I would like very much to know where they got that Jesus if not from the New Testament because secular history has practically no record at all about either a Jesus or the things that a Jesus believed and taught.
If the New Testament's Jesus is not the real Jesus, then where did the other ones come from? Well it's pretty obvious that what people have done is plagiarize the New Testament and leave out all the negative stuff because they believe the negative stuff was added later by people who twisted and distorted and embellished upon the original Jesus in order to support their Hell-fire teachings. That's what can happen when people get God's testimony second hand.
†. Gen 2:16b-17 . . saying: Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.
In order for that threat to make a significant impression upon Adam, it would be necessary for him to first fully understand what it means to die. Did Adam really comprehend the meaning of death? Had he actually seen something die in his world so he would know what God was talking about?
According to the Bible, human beings are all subject to death through Adam.
†. Rom 5:12 . .Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men
So Adam is responsible for bringing human death into the world. But what about animal death? I seriously doubt he is responsible for that. The other creatures were mass produced in swarms and I think fish, bugs, birds, reptiles, and beasts died on a regular basis in Adam's world and that's how he knew what death was. Adam has often been credited with bringing all death into nature, but I strongly suspect that is not quite accurate. He definitely brought human death into the world. But critter death? Probably not.
Some believe that Yhvh was testing Man with the forbidden fruit. But I disagree. I believe he was simply warning his little creature about a particular danger in his environment. We sure don't want kids to play with matches, pick up rattlesnakes, eat deadly mushrooms, drink bleach, or get too close to the edge of a precipice. So when we tell them to stay away from things like that; it's for their own good. And when they disobey, and don't listen to us, we make them regret it. We make them regret it not only because we are upset and angry with them; but because they did wrong, and because they took a foolish risk.
If there's one thing in life I try to avoid as much as possible; it's dying like a fool. When I see people bungi jumping, free-climbing, driving real fast, or vaulting over cars with a motorcycle; I say to myself: now there goes an idiot tempting fate. It might be thrilling, and it might cool, but it's stupid to risk your life like that. If something goes wrong; if they miscalculate the distance, if they don't factor in the jumper's weight accurately, or if the equipment fails; they will be killed and die a fool's death.
Man wasn't created immortal. He had to breathe air to stay alive back in Adam's day, and he still has to breathe air now. That's part of being a nephesh— breathing air to stay alive. The Adams could be killed just as easily as anyone today. Had they gone without food and water too long, or been choked and smothered, or crushed their skulls, severed an artery, or punctured their guts; they would have died just the same as we do. But as long as Man continued to supplement his diet with fruit from the tree of life, he would remain strong and youthful and never die from old age. He could die from other causes, but not that one. And his death wasn't mandatory, but now it is.
Just how often Man needs doses of the tree in order to stay youthful isn't stated. Maybe it's like a flu shot, only once a year. And then again, its ingredients may be so potent that Man needs it only once every ten years; sort of like a tetanus booster. The tree of life is the secret to youth and longevity. In its absence; it's impossible for Man to go on living indefinitely and scientists will never find a way to stop the aging process without it.
The ban on the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, was tempered by a carte blanche to eat fruits from all the rest of the trees; including the tree of life. So it's not like God pigeonholed Man and forced him to eat from the wrong tree in order to survive. Earlier, in Gen 1:29, God gave Man permission to eat all manner of plant life. So Man had lots of options. An abundance of other vegetation was available. Therefore, if Man ate from the wrong tree, he had no excuse for it. And that is what really made eating from that tree so serious— it was willful, and done in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence.
But why on earth would God put a deadly tree into an otherwise perfect environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a tree serve that has the potential to kill? Why even create such a tree in the first place? Was that tree a bad tree? No, it was not a bad tree. When God finished creating, He looked over His work on the 6th day and pronounced it not just good, but "very" good.
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad wasn't a bad tree per se; any more than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening, rattlesnakes, scorpions, avalanches, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles, tsunamis, earthquakes, and arsenic and hemlock are bad in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all fit into the natural web of life. When people willfully cross over boundaries, ignoring the dangers, and start messing around, then they get hurt and it's really no one's fault but their own.
Right now the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles are situated atop the San Andreas; one of the deadliest tectonic plate faults in the whole world; a fault responsible for destroying San Francisco once already. Where did they rebuild San Francisco? Right back in the same place.
Are there plans to evacuate Los Angeles and relocate the city? No. They plan to ride out whatever the San Andreas throws at them and city planners and disaster control specialists have already calculated the body count because the Andreas is overdue for a massive slip. They know there's a really big quake coming but nobody is getting out of the way.
Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005; but where did men rebuild the city? In a safer place, above sea level? No. They rebuilt right back in the same flood plane; below sea level behind levees. And then man blames God when his fragile little house-of-cards world falls apart. People just don't learn.
Man was given fair warning what would happen if he ate from the tree. It was just as fair a warning as parents give their kids not to poke paper clips into wall sockets or lean over a dog too close with their face when they pet a strange one. Consequences for spurning a parent's rules in those cases can be very terrible.
. †. Gen 2:18 . .Yhvh God said: It's not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.
A fitting helper is from two Hebrew words. Fitting is from neged (neh'-ghed) which means: a front, i.e. part opposite; specifically a counterpart, or mate. The word for helper is from `ezer (ay'-zer) which means: aid.
Note that aid is not spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve wasn't meant to be Adam's servant, but rather, his assistance— in other words; his aid as in first aid. Note that assistance is not spelled the same as assistant nor are the two words synonyms. An assistant does what they're told, while assistance is support; and makes life easier.
You know what that suggests to me? It suggests that Adam didn't really have it all that easy in his world, and that Eve's companionship made his life a lot more tolerable and worth the living. The helper that God made for Adam would be both his counterpart, and his aid.
Webster's defines a counterpart as: 1) one of two corresponding copies of a legal instrument: a duplicate 2) a thing that fits another perfectly 3) something that completes or complements 4) one remarkably similar to another 5) one having the same function or characteristics as another.
In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear right from the beginning that human beings were not intended to live a celibate life. If Man were packaged in a box of software, one of his system requirements would be: Companion. Woman's potential for companionship is the primary reason that God made her— not for her sex appeal nor for her reproductive value; no, for companionship.
Before God introduced the man to a woman, he first permitted the man to seek companionship from among the beasts of the animal kingdom. That route failed.
†. Gen 2:19-20a . . And the Lord God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name. And the man gave names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts;
I'm sure Adam loved animals. I guess just about everybody does. But as cute and cuddly as creatures are, they just don't have what it takes to be the kind of companion that a human being really needs.
†. Gen 2:20b . . but for Adam no fitting helper was found.
After failing to fit in with the creatures, God put the man to sleep and manufactured a companion for him— not from the dust as before, but from the man's own flesh and bones.
†. Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for rib is not specifically a skeletal bone. tsela` is found in no less than 31 verses in the Old Testament and in only two of those is it translated by the English word rib— both of them are right here in Gen 2:21-22. The most common rendering of tsela` is side. Actually God didn't take just a bare bone out of Adam's body. He took some of his side along with it. Like a tasty cut of prime rib, God took a big ol' hunk of meat out of Adam right along with bone and blood.
God constructed woman from fresh body parts amputated from the male's own torso. Woman is a human being not formed directly from the Earth, but formed indirectly; from another human being. The human life thriving in Adam's body served to energize his wife's body with human life. They were truly one flesh in every sense of the word but gender. Her flesh was his flesh and her life was his life. The woman completed the creation of Man; so that Man is actually a composite unity— a male part and a female part.
†. Gen 2:22b . . and He brought her to the man.
Adam's response; after meeting the woman and getting to know her a little?
†. Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.
Eve was Adam's own kind: manufactured from his own flesh and bones. Since she was just as much human as himself; she was therefore someone Adam could easily relate to— an impossibility with creatures. Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is precisely why God made women: to be their husband's buddy.
The one who created Man said it is not good for man to live alone. And if it's not good for the male to live alone, then it goes without saying that it's not good for the female either. If men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women should be happier with a man. Of course when couples mistreat each other, then the Creator's design is frustrated.
I believe the war between the sexes is symptomatic of a serious malady within the human race. The Bible says in Isa 53:6 that Messiah had to be crucified for the sins of the world because everybody went astray like sheep, each going his own way. Deep within the feminine mystique, and also within the male ego, is the desire for autonomy: to be independent not only of the opposite sex, but also independent of the Creator's design. However, mankind's Creator didn't intend men and women to function independently of each other. They were created to be together; as couples.
The expression; "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" makes it obvious that Adam had the most perfect friend possible— another human being. Not one precisely as himself, but very much like himself and with enough of a difference to make things interesting.
So Adam saw in Eve his true counterpart— a blood relative who was just as human as himself; and one who could truly relate to him, be sensitive to his feelings, and understand his thoughts; something no other creature ever yet has been able to do.
Pop Quiz: How many friends do people need to dispel feelings of isolation and loneliness? Answer: Just one— if that one is a spouse. They say dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't. Peoples' best friends are spouses that love them.
. †. Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from man was she taken.
The word for Woman is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being as an individual or as a male person. So 'ishshah doesn't mean another kind of man; it just simply means another kind of the same man.
Since the female was constructed from organic human material taken from the male's own body; she was therefore not only another kind of the same man, but also Adam's first child; which is interesting because if God can make a female from a male (Adam to Eve) then it couldn't have been any more difficult to do it in reverse (Mary to Jesus). Was Eve a one-of-a-kind human specie? No, she was born of an already-existing human specie. Was Jesus a one-of-a-kind human specie? No, he was born of an already-existing human specie.
†. Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,
The word for wife in that verse comes from the very same word as woman— 'ishshah (ish-shaw'). What makes a woman somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun his. So she became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became her man. They quite literally owned each other. New Testament marriage retains the Old Testament's concept of possession.
†. 1Cor 7:1-5 . . Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Adultery is very serious not only because it is immoral, but also because it is an act of theft; and of fraud.
An important point in Gen 2:24 is the clinging. There comes a time in every young man's life when it's time for him to grow up; to stop depending on his parents, sever the apron strings, leave home, leave the diversions of youth, and take up residence with a woman— his own woman.
†. Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.
Bible marriage isn't a political arrangement like the marriages of feminism where couples retain their independence. In Bible marriage, the two individuals lose their independence and become, no longer two autonomous individuals; but one. People who regard their spouse as an associate rather than an equal part of their own body, have got the wrong attitude about marriage.
In Bible marriage, opposite genders are fused together and the half each brought to the union forms one whole human being. They may appear on the surface to be two separate individuals but in marriage they aren't; no they're an organic unity— one body, one person —and all other loyalties take second place; especially loyalty to parents. If married people are still putting their parents first, over and above loyalty to their spouses, then they have not really left home yet, and they surely don't think very much of their spouse either.
If a boy and a girl are not prepared to shift their loyalties to an intended spouse, then their marriage would be an evil union. They dishonor their spouses; and they spurn their maker's wishes regarding the marriage relationship. Marriage isn't for people who are incapable of running their own life; and it is absolutely not for children who cannot put loyalty to their spouses ahead of their parents.
. †. Gen 2:25a . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife,
It's very difficult to believe that God fully intended for people to live without clothing. So how come early Man didn't need protection for his skin? Nobody really knows for sure; maybe because human skin was a whole lot tougher and thicker than now; and far more resistant to natural sunlight.
Still; nudity seems so impractical. And I would imagine that Adam and his wife needed to bathe pretty often too. Without clothing to protect their skin from dust and grime, in no time at all they would be as funky as two pigs in a puddle.
†. Gen 2:25b . . yet they felt no shame.
The Hebrew word for shame is buwsh (boosh); which means, properly, to pale; by implication, to be ashamed; also by implication, to be disappointed, held in check, and/or delayed
Webster's archaic meaning of the word pale is a picket, or one of the stakes of a palisade; while its modern definition of ashamed is: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and 3) inhibited.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal nudity; and actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. They weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their appearance in the nude. In my opinion, feelings of inferiority and inadequacy have destroyed far more people's happiness than wars, accidents, and forces of nature; with vanity and narcissism the nearest runners-up.
Not to be gender-bashing, but I would be willing to wager a Patek Philippe against a Seiko that if I were to set up a full length mirror along the sidewalk in front of my home; practically every female jogger in the neighborhood would eventually adjust their routes to allow them to pass by that mirror every time they went out running because women today, unlike grandmother Eve in her innocence, are self conscious; which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's self as the object of the observation of others.
Even if a nuclear disaster left but one lone woman on earth, and no one else on the planet to observe her, she would still want to look at herself in a mirror. Actually, any reflective surface will do. My wife utilizes a chrome strip along the edge of our refrigerator as a mirror when she's out in the kitchen. For a good number of years I didn't even know that chrome strip was there until she told me because men, as a rule, aren't attuned to their reflections nearly as acutely as women are of theirs.
Man's inclination to clothe himself is influenced primarily by culture and self consciousness. No doubt any inhibitions Adam and his wife would have felt, had they felt any, would have been akin to the disgrace of indecent exposure; which is a behavior that post-Eden civilized humanity normally associates with perverts.
Adam and his wife didn't feel naughty about frontal nudity at first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any because God hadn't taught them any proprieties yet.
NOTE: Before moving into chapter 3, something needs to be addressed regarding the origin of Man.
There are those who feel the account of Man's creation in the book of Genesis has nothing to do with either fact or reality— that the story is merely a myth intended to teach spiritual lessons. Well, that theory simply cannot be accepted by serious Bible students because the New Testament's Jesus fully authenticated the Genesis story.
†. Mtt 19:3-6 . . Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?
. . Haven't you read? he replied; that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not divide.
Since the lord and master of New Testament Christianity regarded the Genesis account of Man's origin as true— that Man, a composite unity of two genders, was created by a supreme being; who decreed that marriage is a Divine bond— it is therefore a foregone conclusion. To question the truthfulness of Genesis is to question Jesus' own personal acceptance of the Bible; and impugns his competence as a spiritual leader. It also insinuates that he misrepresented the Bible's God.
†. John 3:31-36 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit
†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.
†. John 12:48-50 . . For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a mandate; what I should say, and what I should speak.
. Some people get upset with God for not stepping in and preventing the so-called original sin. But if God were to micro-manage Man in order to prevent all evil from occurring, then no one would have any freedom of choice whatsoever. The Bible's God would be just one big meddler in the sky because a prevent-all-evil God would never allow anyone to make choices as responsible adults. Everybody would be slaves and puppets, and have no space to experiment.
Even if you don't like pornography, wouldn't you at least like the freedom to check it out once in a while if you wanted to? And suppose you're against abortion; but what if the day comes when you desperately need one yourself? If you don't like fast food then don't eat it. But shouldn't people be allowed to make that decision for themselves? Man was made in God's image. That image carries some heavy responsibilities; but it also grants Man quite a bit of liberty too.
Biblically, the so-called concept of "free will" doesn't imply complete autonomy with no consequences. Far from it. Bible free will grants liberty to make selections from available options but it in no way grants anybody immunity from the jurisdiction of a higher power.
Here in the 3rd chapter of Genesis, the first couple is going to exercise one of their options. Their selection, and its subsequent consequences, were completely out my control. However, their selection will become my own selection; viz: in reality, I have no opinion at all in this matter— nobody does —we're all stuck with the choice they made just as if it were our very own at the time.
†. Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.
Probably no other creature in the Bible provokes so much skepticism as the Serpent. It just smacks of mythology. But this particular serpent was no ordinary reptile. It was indeed a remarkable creature. Not only was it capable of language, and able to communicate on a very sophisticated level with human beings, but it had an exceptional IQ too. It grasped the significance of a supreme being, and totally understood the workings of human nature and the human mind. No mere animal is capable of that degree of insight, cognition, and communication.
The final book in the New Testament confirms the Serpent's true identity, and it is none other than the dark spirit being well known to everyone as the Devil and Satan.
†. Rev 20:1-3 . . And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the Dragon, the Serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the abyss, and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
According to Jesus, the Serpent was in the world from the very beginning; and his stock in trade was murder and deception right from the get go.
†. John 8:44 . . He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and a liar's father.
Since Rev 20:1-3 has not yet come to pass, then the Serpent remains at large and very active in today's modern world. It is highly skilled at mental suggestions: secretly guiding mankind along a road to self destruction. It is the source of much of the world's political tensions, and certainly the impetus behind all large scale anti-Semitic agendas.
I have never seen the Serpent myself; nor would I care to. But I know from Mtt 4:1-11 that Jesus saw it, and talked with it. From that passage it's obvious that the Serpent is capable of human speech, understands human needs and weaknesses, understands the existence of the Bible's God, understands the concept of worship, understands the Bible, and understands the advantages of manipulating human minds, and world power.
The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of God to sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't hesitate to entice a little nobody like Eve. But Eve was extremely strategic, she was the high ground in the battle for men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the mother of all subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root of humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human race.
The Serpent seems possessed with a strange, criminal mentality: beyond comprehension. But then, so are pedophiles, serial killers, unibombers, and men like Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of criminals are psychotic prisoners of dark minds clouded with unnatural inclinations. The Serpent, though surely an incredible genius; is nonetheless an evil genius; not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action comics.
What we see in human nature often mirrors the Serpent's own dark personality. But the origin of the Serpent's twisted mind is really puzzling. How did it get that way? Was it a birth defect? Did it bump its head? One thing is for sure though— the Serpent's activities are living proof that angels aren't mindless robots created to obey the will of God without thought or question. They too have a will of their own, and the freedom of choice between good and evil— the very same choices that Man is at liberty to exercise.
C.L.I.F.F. /
Last edited by Webers_Home; 17th August 2009 at 10:21 AM.
A characteristic of Eden's world was not only a lack of human death, but also a lack of fear. Man feared neither himself, nor the other creatures, nor the dark, nor the spirit beings.
The woman displayed no recorded astonishment whatsoever when the Serpent spoke to her; which suggests it had conversed with the Adams on other occasions before this incident; and possibly had become a close family friend. Before making its move to wreck their life, the Serpent more than likely spent some time in advance nurturing a rapport with the Adams so the woman would have no cause for alarm when it approached; and would therefore not suspect its intentions.
Being an innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman would certainly never suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and truthful. Up to this point, Eve wasn't even aware that something called a "lie" existed. And actually, she didn't even know what honesty was either because nobody had taught her anything about it yet.
†. Gen 3:1c . . Did God really say: You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?
Catching the woman alone, away from her husband's oversight, the Serpent began subtly introducing a concept which neither she nor Adam had even imagined before: it is actually possible for a creature to question its maker. However; that is not a particularly good idea; and reveals a lack of trust, rather than advancement and enlightenment.
†. Isa 45:9 . . Shame on him who argues with his Maker, though naught but a potsherd of earth!
†. Dan 4:32 . . All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account. [God] does as He wishes with the host of heaven, and with the inhabitants of the earth. There is none to stay His hand or say to Him: What have You done?
Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male? Probably because Adam got his intel straight from the horse's mouth and knew the truth very clearly and without ambiguity. But the woman quite possibly was instructed second hand, in conversations with her husband; who was, in effect, her personal rabbi. So it would be fairly easy to convince the woman that maybe she didn't hear her husband right, or that Adam himself didn't really know what he was talking about.
Of course it was ridiculous to suggest the humans were forbidden to eat of "any" tree. But the Serpent was slowly sneaking up on the woman with subtle suggestions. Probing for weak points, the Serpent tested her understanding of God's instructions by asking a question that she should have been able to answer with relative ease. In response; the woman bounced right back and quoted God like a pro (or so she thought).
†. Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.
oopsie! Where did God say Adam couldn't "touch" the fruit. The woman adulterated God's instructions by reading something into them that He didn't actually say. She fell prey to a very human weakness— not only of adulterating God's testimony, but of a tendency to make the laws of God more strict than they really are. Adulteration changes the meanings of God's sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While often containing a measure of truth, adulterations are nevertheless not pure truth, but amalgams of truth and human error that falsify God's teachings and direct people off in the wrong direction; leading them to believe, and to repeat, things that aren't true.
. †. Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,
Having already tested the woman's interpretation of God's instructions, and found her in error, the Serpent was understandably encouraged to push on and attempt to introduce some additional bogus concepts. The woman's fall is typical. First she adulterated God's instructions. Then she listened to someone refute them. Next, she will accept the refuter's argument, and then she will break with God.
†. Gen 3:5a . . but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings
The Hebrew word for divine beings is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is the very same word for God in Gen 1:1. If someone gave you an opportunity to be like God; wouldn't you take it? I think you would; if you didn't know any better.
The Serpent insinuated that God was withholding the tree's fruit, not because it was poisonous or anything like that; but to keep the humans suppressed. In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very same tree and that's why He didn't want to share the fruit with them; because then they might become savvy enough to go out on their own without depending so much upon their maker for everything.
Unbeknownst to the woman, the Serpent was actually on a recruiting drive. It wanted the humans to join forces with it in standing up to God; and to assist in its ambition to guide the entire universe towards complete rebellion against The Creator. It surely overheard the divine fiat granting Man complete dominion over all the cosmos. So if the Serpent could succeed in getting Man to follow it, then the Serpent would become a major influence in Man's methods for ruling the Earth. It would, then, for all practical intents and purposes, become the world's next God in place of The True God; and it did (cf. Eph 2:1-2, and 2Cor 4:3-4)
The woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for the Serpent's intelligence. But her defeat wasn't inevitable. She could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to her guns and parroting God's instructions verbatim over and over again until the Serpent gave up. But no, she dropped God's instructions early on; and thus set the stage for the utter ruin of her own posterity.
I think it should be emphasized again that the woman's decision to believe the Serpent, and depart from God's instructions, wasn't done from the depths of a fallen, sinful human nature; but from the depths of sinless innocence; so that her decision to ignore God's wishes can't be blamed upon a wicked being's inherently natural inclination to rebel against sovereign authority.
†. Gen 3:5b . . who know good from bad.
The humans at this point, were responsible adults fully informed of a divine mandate, and of the consequences for violating it. Though they didn't as yet have an intuitive ability to discern moral absolutes, they didn't need that ability at this point in time in order to incur guilt in this incident. They only needed to know the boundaries, and to know that crossing them had consequences. Thus Genesis shows, in this early incident, that it isn't necessary for someone to have a conscience in order to be charged with guilt. They only need to have a knowledge of the boundaries; and God had clearly spelled them out in advance, so there is no excuse for what Eve did.
. †. Gen 3:6a . .When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating
By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the fruit wasn't poisonous if nothing was dropping dead at the base of the tree.
†. Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes,
Most fruits are very appealing— just look at bananas and pears and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and watermelon and grapes and plums and mangoes and strawberries. God doubtless made them that way not just so Man could not only nourish himself, but also enjoy his food.
†. Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,
The word for wisdom is from sakal (saw-kal') which means: to be (causatively, make or act) circumspect and hence, intelligent. Wisdom implies far more than just a knowledge of facts and data. It implies an intuition to grasp metaphysical concepts, which Webster's defines as: of, or relating to, the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses; viz: the mental ability to grasp abstract concepts like honesty, integrity, decency, faith, etc. as opposed to concrete objects like trees, chairs, flowers, goldfish, and puppy dogs.
The woman was overcome by a powerful desire, not for nourishment, but apparently for self enlightenment. The Serpent's spiel promised to help her achieve that goal. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with self improvement. But in the area of good and evil, Man's creator is the final authority because it's not inherent in Man to understand good and evil without Divine instruction.
†. Pro 1:7 . .The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Yes, some people make poor students because they don't like being told anything; preferring instead to figure out everything for themselves.
The allure of the fruit was remarkably similar to the characteristics of practically every kind of temptation known to Man. To the woman's perception, the fruit: 1) appealed to the sensual — good for eating, 2) appealed to the aesthetic senses— a delight to the eyes, and 3) appealed to the mind — a source of wisdom.
Eve's temptation brought out the inherent weaknesses of human nature that are resident within every natural born human being.
†. 1John 2:16 . . For all that is in the world— the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life —is not of the Father but is of the world.
Any person who sincerely longs to grasp moral absolutes must turn to Man's creator to find out what they are, and then lean upon the assistance of God's Spirit in order to intuitively know how best to apply them. Why? Because that is the way human beings were engineered. Man simply cannot empathize with God without Divine assistance.
†. 1Cor 2:10-15 . . For who among human beings grasps the thoughts of a human being except by the human spirit which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one grasps except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may grasp the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thinking with spiritual words. But an earthly man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are absurd to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Haven't you wondered why there's so much disagreement about the correct interpretation of the Bible? Well . . God's Spirit is the Bible's custodian because the Bible contains God's thoughts; and to interpret God's thoughts properly requires doses of His own intuition. On its own, the human intuition is totally inadequate for the job.
†. Deut 29:2-4 . . And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them; "Ye have seen all that The Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: yet The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."
That easily explains why the average Jew is so resistant to the Gospel. They simply lack The Spirit's intuition to realize that Jesus of Nazareth really is their Messiah.
†. 2Cor 3:14-16 . . But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains in place because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
The Serpent is indeed a very skilled predator. After careful study of its quarry to learn her weak points and to find out what she wanted most in life, the Serpent devised a customized strategy to lure the targeted individual to ruin. No one is exempt from those kinds of strategies. Even the New Testament's Jesus was targeted. His adversary understood human nature well enough to know just exactly where to probe for Jesus' weaknesses.
Luke 4:2-4 is an appeal to the sensual. Hunger is legitimate. Jesus needed food. So the Serpent tried to get Jesus to use his super powers to satisfy his own personal needs. But Jesus was only supposed to use those powers according to his Father's will; and never to do anything with them without prior approval (John 4:34, John 6:38).
Luke 4:5-8 is an appeal to the allure of power and control. Jesus does indeed desire to rule the world, and he will some day. The Serpent offered Jesus a short cut— all he had to do was sell his soul.
Luke 4:9-12 is an appeal to prove God is on your side. Sure, the angels would have rescued Jesus and prevented his death. But it's a sin to take God's providence for granted; and to impose upon His hospitality (e.g. Ex 17:1-7, Num 21:4-9, Deut 6:16).
C.L.I.F.F. /
Last edited by Webers_Home; 20th August 2009 at 09:26 AM.
Linear Mode
