Daily Genesis

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:1 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array.

There are big questions that many philosophers and scientists have been unable to answer. What makes things alive? What is the origin of the spark of life? Man can build anything; even go up and walk on the moon; but he can't make anything come to life, and he can't figure out why living things live, nor even why they should get old and die. Everything in the universe is aging, including the universe.

How does the human brain, a 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue, produce the phenomena of memory, consciousness, and self awareness? How does it make us all behave so similarly at times, and yet endow each of us with a unique and irreproducible existence? Why does Man have a sense of justice, of fair play, and a desire for revenge? Why does he strive to be right rather than wrong? Why does Man want his life to count for something? Why isn't Man amoral like the other creatures? Butterflies are free, why aren't we? And why does anything exist at all? Why not nothing, instead of something? Satisfactory answers to those questions can only be found in the activity of a creator.

Look down at your writing hand for a moment— revolve it a little this way and a little that way while examining its many features. It is very light weight, yet mechanically strong and nimble; able to perform a wide variety of tasks; from playing a piano, to sewing on a button, or fixing plumbing under the sink. With the application of a manicure, some lotion, jewelry, and a trendy nail polish, the human hand can be made quite lovely; yet at the same time it remains an efficient, complex machine of lubricated levers and joints and cables constructed of living, sensitive tissues rather than metals or plastics, and wires and batteries.

Your hand, as marvelous as it is in its own right, represents merely a speck in the grand parade of complicated structures in the cosmos; and its existence by chance has about the odds of the unabridged Webster's dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop.

The genetic structure of living things is mind boggling in itself. The number of genes, or units of DNA, composing organisms ranges from 6,000 units in yeast to 100,000 units in humans. Encoded within those 100,000 human genes are three billion bits of information. Each unit of DNA stores 30,000 bits equal to 3.75 kilobytes per unit for a grand total of 375 gigabytes of data crammed into a human's DNA molecules too small to be seen with the naked eye.

More than 200 years ago, Carolus Linnaeus began counting and classifying the world's species, and today biologists still cannot say how many there are. However, on two things they all agree: they are nowhere near a complete count, and the final tally will fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million species. Taxonomists identify and categorize roughly 13,000 new species of life every year. At that rate, it could take centuries to complete the census. Remarkably, each and every specie on earth has its very own unique genetic code. That just can't be the result of chance and a huge explosion.

Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees, Physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science), in his book, The First Three Minutes, wrote: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . .The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."

What a dismal appraisal. To a brilliant, secular man like Mr.Weinberg, the human experience is an exercise in futility. The universe? It's devoid of meaning— just a three-dimensional mural that people find fascinating and interesting— a curiosity. The quest for knowledge seems the only thing that gives men like Weinberg any purpose to exist at all.

More >>

 

[Webers_Home]

.
As I recently contemplated the expense involved in launching and maintaining the Hubble Space Telescope, I couldn't help but wonder why NASA did it. In what way have Americans benefited from the mountain of tax money spent on that scope? All they have really gained is entertainment. The images from Hubble are beautiful and awe-inspiring; and the scientific data gained from its on-board instrumentation delights the intellect; but from the point of view of practicality, the HST serves no humanitarian purpose whatsoever except to reinforce Steven Weinberg's opinion that the universe (without a God to give it meaning), is indeed quite pointless.

People have only two choices for the origin of the universe. Either it always existed, or it had a beginning. There really are no other rational selections. It's highly unlikely a well ordered cosmos always existed because it is the natural tendency of unsupervised order not to remain stable; but to deteriorate towards disorder and chaos. For example: we now know the sun is dying and moving steadily towards its death. When that happens, the solar system will go into deep freeze and all life on earth will cease. In point of fact, every star in the universe is gradually burning out.

Agnostics and atheists claim there exists no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being. But they are foolishly invalidating the testimony of the universe and of the world of nature when they say things like that. There exists far more evidence to prove the reality of a supreme being than does to prove otherwise.

†. Ps 19:1-4 . .The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

Mr. Weinberg feels that religion is an enemy of science. He is wrong. Religion provides answers to the questions science cannot answer. Religion gives meaning and purpose to human existence; which would otherwise languish in science somewhere between a farce and a tragedy.

Georges Lemaître proposed the universe came into existence with a big bang ,and actually, the second verse of the Bible strongly suggests a cataclysmic beginning of just that type. But questions must be asked: Banged from what? From whence came the matter and the energy that banged? And what about the immense void housing the bang? Where did that come from? Is there something beyond it? Is the void infinite, or does it have dimensions? If there is an infinite void, and if there is infinite matter, then why should it be thought unreasonable to believe in an infinite Being?

Alexander Friedmann's theory of an expanding universe was lent some credibility by Edwin Hubble's discovery that galaxies, in all directions, appear to be moving away from each other at tremendous velocities. Some felt that the effects of universal gravity would limit the cosmos' expansion and make it slow down; eventually stop it from expanding, and make it shrink back to its original state and bang all over again; perpetuating a never ending cycle of banging and shrinking. But we now know from the Supernova studies of Saul Perlmutter and Brian Schmidt, that the universe is not only expanding, but contrary to expectations, the velocity of its expansion is accelerating; viz: gravity is not slowing the expansion down at all, it's actually speeding up, so the cosmos will never of its own accord stop expanding in order to shrink itself back into one solid glob of highly condensed matter.

That discovery was very discouraging for cosmologist Alan Sandage since he was once a proponent of the theory that the universe would some day shrink upon itself; and called the discovery of the ever increasing velocity of the expanding universe a "terrible surprise." In a special 2002 collector's edition of U.S. News and World report, a paragraph says that at a 1998 cosmologists conference in Berkeley California, Mr. Sandage told the gathering that contemplating the majesty of the big bang helped make him a believer in God; and willing to accept that the creation could only be explained as a miracle.

The theological idea of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing); is looking better all the time as inflation theories increasingly suggest the universe emerged from no tangible source. And although theorists energetically fantasize an endless parade of explanations for the origin of the universe, they have been doing so within the context of the known laws of physics; the meanwhile having no clue about the origin of those laws. In other words: they cannot explain where those laws came from in the first place— nor can they explain why the known laws control matter and energy the way they do rather than some other way.

Dr. Robert Jastow, founder of the Goddard Institute for space studies at NASA, in his book: God And The Astronomers; said; "Strange developments are going on in astronomy. One of these is the discovery that the universe had a beginning. And that means there has to be a Beginner. The scientist has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:2 . . On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done.

The Hebrew word for ceased is from shabath (shaw-bath') and means: to repose, i.e. desist from exertion; (used in many implied relations).

The seventh day, although included among the days of creation week, is a peculiar day because it lacks the boundaries of an evening and morning like the others; but is instead an open-ended period of repose; in other words, I cannot limit the seventh "day" to the length of a 24-hour civil day. The previous 24-hour days were filled with the business of construction. But at the end of the sixth, God stopped creating stuff for the cosmos and hasn't created anything new for it since; ergo: the seventh day is neither a pause nor an intermission. This is very significant.

The seventh day of the civil week was later utilized to memorialize God's creation labors.

†. Ex 31:12-17 . .Then Yhvh said to Moses: Say to the Israelites; You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am Yhvh, who makes you holy.

. . Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, dedicated to Yhvh. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

. .The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days Yhvh made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He abstained from work and rested.

The primary purpose of the Sabbath, then, is to remind the Jews from whence they and the cosmos came: it's origin, its source, and its maker.

The Sabbath was never a holy day of obligation in the garden of Eden, nor was it a holy day of obligation up to the Flood; nor was it a holy day of obligation after the Flood in either Abraham's, Isaac's, or Jacob's day; nor was it a holy day of obligation at any time during the people of Israel's sojourn in the land of Egypt up to the time of their liberation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.

In that respect then, Sabbaths are pertinent to a rescued people rather than just anybody who happens to be looking in. Christians have a Sabbath too, but it's not the Genesis day. The New Testament's Sabbath is perpetual (Heb 3:1-4:16) and based upon Christ's work on the cross rather than upon God's six days' of work manufacturing the old creation. Believers are members of a new creation (Isa 65:17, 2Cor 5:17, Rev 21:1) where the old Sabbath has neither application nor jurisdiction.

†. Col 2:16-17 . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
In any treatment of the Genesis story, one has to factor in the age of the earth; which geologists are pretty sure now is somewhere around 4.5 Billion years; and is very easy to substantiate.

For example, both the Alps and the Rockies were at one time ancient sea beds. How do we know? Because of the fossilized remains of sea creatures indicating that the Alps and the Rockies did not always exist at their current elevations. In point of fact, the Alps are actually shrinking as erosion is steadily tearing them down so that the height and shape of the Alps today are not even the same as when Hannibal crossed them to attack Rome.

Then there is also the testimony of past ice ages, the evidence of unbelievable massive volcanic eruptions such as those that continue to shape the Yellowstone area, and the forces of plate tectonics; not to mention the fossilized remains of dinosaurs; the vast coal and oil deposits, and the layers of salt formed by the evaporation of ancient seas that once inundated the area where the Great Lakes exist today. No joke, something like 1,700 feet below the surface of the Great Lakes is a really immense, thick, multilayered deposit of salt from the evaporation of seas that existed many, many years prior to the Lakes, and there are land masses, islands, and reefs that came into being by the deposit of the remains of multiplied zillions of teensy little marine organisms over long, long periods of time.

It is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to ignore the findings of Geology and Paleontology. Bible believers have got to come to grips with true science or end up looking like fanatical buffoons. It is far better to formulate a theory, no matter how unworkable, to harmonize the age of the earth with the Genesis record than to just ignore the findings of science and hope they go away.

A popular theory going around is the so-called gap theory, which inserts a lengthy, undisclosed interval of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 meaning that somewhere between the universe's original creation, and that second verse, the original underwent some kind of catastrophic event that made it necessary for God to reconstruct it; sort of like a plastic surgeon reconstructs someone's face after an accident.

Another possibility is that undisclosed intervals of time lapsed between each of the six days; meaning that Man was created a pretty good number of years after all else.

Either theory, or one of their variations, are okay by me; but it is absolutely unacceptable to have no theory at all. The earth's geology itself simply will not permit a young age. No, today's earth, and the universe it resides in, are easily proven to be much older than the relative youth that many of today's theologians prefer. All I can say to them is that stubbornness has never been a virtue. It's okay to keep the six days; but at the same time, they should get to work finding a way to harmonize those days with true science.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:3 . . And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done.

The phrase declared it holy is from the word qadash (kaw-dash') which means: to be clean, or to make, pronounce, or observe as clean. Pronouncing something clean, or observing something as clean, doesn't mean it's actually clean. It's just regarded as if it were clean. That principle is a very important factor in the plan of salvation because people destined for Heaven have been declared innocent of all charges against them, even though they aren't. (e.g. Luke 18:13-14, Acts 13:39, Rom 3:21-26).

This is the very first time in the Bible, and the only place in the whole book of Genesis, where God's word purified a created thing. Some definitions of clean are: unadulterated, pure, sanctified, free from dirt, unpolluted, free from contamination or disease, spotless, immaculate, unsoiled, untainted, innocent, blameless, faultless, blameless, chaste, decent, sinless, undefiled, and/or set aside for a special purpose.

In the case of Gen 2:3, and in many other cases as well, the status of cleanness is often a conferred status, rather than an intrinsic condition.

†. Isa 6:5-7 . . I cried, “Woe is me; I am lost! For I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my own eyes have beheld The King Lord of Hosts.” Then one of the seraphs flew over to me with a live coal, which he had taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. He touched it to my lips and declared, “Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt shall depart and your sin be purged away.”

That happened on the day Isaiah was commissioned to begin his evangelism career. Although Isaiah was by nature a sinful being, God declared him purified so he could represent The King Lord of Hosts as a "clean" man instead of as a common man. Jesus did the same thing for his apostles.

†. John 15:3 . .You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

It wasn't necessary for Isaiah, or for Jesus' men, to earn their cleanness; nor was it necessary for them to try their best to be ultra pious men. Cleanness was conferred upon them the same as God conferred it upon the seventh day. Neither the seventh day, nor Isaiah, nor Jesus' men are actually pure in and of themselves. The status is a declared status rather than an earned status.

Sinners, who by nature fully and rightfully deserve to go straight to Hell, have an opportunity to escape through the principle of conferred cleanness.

†. Eph 2:4-10 . . But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions— it is by grace that you have been rescued. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

. . God rescued you by His sympathy and kindness when you believed; and you can't take credit for this; it's a gratuity from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

†. Ps 32:1-2 . . Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered over. Happy the man whom Yhvh does not hold guilty,

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:4a . . Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.

And a very concise story it is. Some have proposed that a second creation story begins right about here. But it really doesn't. The author will now reveal a little behind the scenes detail in the next section— similar to the end of a Hollywood movie on DVD when they show us how they did all those incredible special effects in Matrix.

The word when is from yowm which is the very same word used for each of the individual six days of creation. Since yowm in Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a typical 24-hour civil day, then some feel that the six days of creation could just as easily have been days of longer duration too.

But each of the days of creation are specifically bounded by an evening and a morning. Here in Gen 2:4, yowm isn't specified that way; but comprises the entire six days. The length of a day in Scripture is sometimes ambiguous unless the author adds something to the text to clarify it; and in the record of creation, something was— Evenings and Mornings.

If creation theorists wish to separate each of the six days with discrete epochs that would be okay. But it is not okay to expand the length of each individual day beyond the obvious 24-hour periods that evenings and mornings define.

†. Gen 2:4b . .When Yhvh God

Right here is the very first time in Scripture where God's most famous of His names appears. Up to this point, The Creator has been identified by the generic noun 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which means: gods, divine beings, or civil authorities. The noun is plural but doesn't necessarily mean The Creator is a plural being. Sheep, fish, and deer are plural too but don't always indicate more than one of each. So plural nouns don't eo ipso denote more than one item. There are other gods named in the Bible, such as Baal and Dagon, of whom the word 'elohiym is used and those gods are not composite entities (e.g. 1Kings 18:25-29, Judges 16:23).

The Creator's new name is yhvh (sometimes written Yehovah and sometimes Yahweh) which means: (the) self-Existent or Eternal. In other words: He was, He is, and He will be. So in any direction in time that we care to look, as far ahead or as far aft, Yhvh has either been there already, or He is going to be up ahead when we get there since He is an entity who was never born and will never die.

Yhvh is not just another eternal life, no, on the contrary, He is the eternal life as well as the dispenser of all forms of life; which sets him apart from all other living things. Although believers have eternal life (John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, 1John 5:13) they are not eternal entities like their maker. In order to be classified a true eternal entity, one cannot have a beginning. In addition, Yhvh is able to dispense life, while believers can receive life, but they cannot dispense it. So then, eternal life can be defined as the life of God as opposed to the life of creatures like angels, insects, beasts, birds, fish, and Man.

Eternal Life is not to be confused with Immortality. Life and Immortality are juxtaposed at 2Tim 1:10 where the two terms are connected with a conjunction. They aren't connected with a verb, so that you can't say Life is Immortality; no, Life and Immortality are two distinctly different states of being. Immortality refers to the nature of one's physical body; while Life refers to the nature of one's existence; e.g. animal life, plant life, human life, angel life, and God life.

When Jesus of Nazareth said to his countrymen at John 8:58; "Before Abraham was, I am." he could make no higher claim. It's no wonder they wanted to stone him. Had Jesus said "I was" that would have been bad enough, but to say "I am" makes any human being the greatest of blasphemers (and the greatest of liars) because only Yhvh holds the "I am" distinction among the Jews. (Ex 3:14)

No one actually knows how to pronounce Yhvh; which is just as well since it is a death offense, (and an insult as well) to speak that name in a disrespectful way.

Yhvh's appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every effort to avoid speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some of their writings, in order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising the tetragrammaton, they write instead The Name or Hashem. So Ex 20:3 could be written: "I, The Name, am your god" or: "I, Hashem, am your god."

NOTE: The Bible's God is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns. Why masculine? Because Yhvh is a king, and kings are males rather than females.

†. Isa 44:6 . . Thus testifies Yhvh, the king of Israel, and His redeemer, Yhvh of hosts: I am the First and I am the Last; other than Me there is no god.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:4c-7a . . made earth and heaven— when no shrub of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, because Yhvh God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the earth —Yhvh God formed man from the dust of the earth.

Verses 4-7 reiterate that Man didn't evolve over millions and millions of years from some lower order of life. He was created just like you see him— a viable human being. And he was created on a day of his own distinctly separate from the other five days of creation; and directly from the Earth itself; not from some yucky protoplasmic goo slithering on a rock in a brackish prehistoric backwater lagoon somewhere.

The word formed is from yatsar (yaw-tsar') which means: to mold into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e. form a resolution)

The word dust is from `aphar (aw-fawr') which means: dust (as powdered or gray); hence, clay, earth, mud

So mankind was sculpted out of the Earth like a piece of pottery. However; if no water were mixed in with the dust, humans would just crumble and blow away like a bowl of flour; and we do too. If people go without water for too long, they become dangerously dehydrated and eventually die. Then, if left to the course of nature, they dissolve.

The word flow, in verse 6, doesn't really tell it right. It's from 'ed (ade) which means: a fog. It's a very rare Hebrew word and appears only one more time in the whole Bible.

†. Job 36:26-30 . . See, God is greater than we can know; the number of His years cannot be counted. He forms the droplets of water, which cluster into rain, from His mist. The skies rain; they pour down on all mankind. Can one, indeed, contemplate the expanse of clouds, the thunderings from His pavilion? See, He spreads His lightning over it; it fills the bed of the sea.

Job understood 'ed to mean water vapor. So the flow of Gen 2:6 isn't really a flow like moving water in a creek, but fog, mist, and/or humidity.

Man isn't entirely an animated form of clay. Dust consists of the basic metallic, non metallic, and gaseous chemical elements such as carbon, calcium, phosphorous, hydrogen, oxygen, iron, sodium, and stuff like that constituting all natural things. More than a hundred elements are known to exist in nature and many of them can be found in living things.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:7b . . He blew into his nostrils the breath of life,

The word for blew is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means: to puff, in various applications (literally, to inflate, blow hard, scatter, kindle, expire; figuratively, to disesteem).

God personally gave Man his first breath of air by puffing it into his lungs Himself. However, it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried. So, what is it that made Man come alive? In fact what made anything come alive? What makes bugs, and birds, and fishes, and reptiles, and Man alive and viable? It's the breath of life— not just atmospheric gases; but a powerful mysterious energy within creatures that makes them sentient and conscious. God had just freshly created a human being and there it lay; perfectly good organic tissue; but it was dead. It was neither sentient nor vigorous until God energized it with the spark of life.

Scientists have yet to find a way to initiate Life, nor yet have they been able to construct a creature. They can't even come close. All I ever seem to hear about is evolution and the Big Bang. But why don't we talk about the really simple things in life that could never be produced by either evolution or a gigantic explosion. Things like a sneeze, a blooming flower, a wasp collecting mud to build her nest, the feel of crisp air at dawn when the birds begin to chirp, a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, the sensual power of a lass upon a young man's heart, and the effect of music upon the soul. And what about the human brain? How does a 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue produce the phenomena of memory, consciousness, and self awareness?

†. Gen 2:7c . . and man became a living being.

To this good day, after years of intensive research, science is still nowhere near an understanding of the nature of consciousness. Exactly how the human brain makes everyone behave so similarly at times, while endowing each individual with a unique and irreproducible existence, is yet a total mystery. Solving that mystery might require another century of study, and some neuroscientists and philosophers believe that comprehension of what makes you the me that you are; may always remain unknowable.

Neuroscience— the scientific attempt to deduce how the brain works —has succeeded in unraveling critical chemical and electrical pathways involved in memory, movement, and emotion. But reducing the perceptions of a John Coltrane solo, or the palette of a Hawaiian sunset, to a series of interactions among axons, neurotransmitters and dendrites still fails to explain what makes an event special.

The words living being are from two words: chay (khah'-ee) and nephesh (neh'-fesh). We saw those words earlier in Gen 1:7 and Gen 1:20-30 regarding sea life, land life, and atmospheric life (birds); excluding vegetation. Although Man is a higher form of life than all the rest of the creatures, he is, nevertheless, an animal-like being; and except for his apparently higher consciousness; Man is little more than a brute in his essential nature.

†. Ps 49:10-12 . . For one can see that even wise men die; the stupid and the senseless perish too; and leave their wealth to others. Their inner thought is, that their estates are forever, and their dwelling places to all generations. They have called their lands after their own names. But man's pomp will not sustain him; he is little different than other perishable beasts.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:8a . .Yhvh God planted a garden in Eden,

That garden, like Man's first breath, was done for him personally by his maker. The remainder of Earth's flora was planted in a large scale, professional manner. But the garden was specially prepared for Man like someone might build a home for their family. It's true that Man is a creature and Yhvh isn't his actual biological kin. But Man is much more than just another nephesh like as if he were pet canary or something. No, human beings were made in God's image, and are as close to being God's kin as a creature can possibly get in the natural world.

The word for garden is from gan (gan) and means: a garden as fenced. So the garden wasn't just a nondescript parcel of acreage with apricots and turnips growing on it. The garden (which very likely was a full-blown farm complete with orchards) was walled in like a defensive hamlet. If dinosaurs existed in Adam's day, then his food supplies would require protection inside a fortress. At this time, no land animals were carnivorous so there was little to fear for his life. But just a few of those big lumbering behemoths could easily eat a man out of house and home in no time at all if they weren't kept out; not to mention the appetites of ordinary deer and bear. They would want to come in and help themselves too.

Here in Oregon deer are very plentiful; so much so that some people regard them as pests rather than game animals. A friend built their new home adjacent to timber lands where deer commonly come down out of the hills to browse on people's lawns like cattle on pasture grass. Our friend had no luck cultivating a rose garden because deer would come at night and eat her roses' buds before they had a chance to bloom.

†. Gen 2:8b . . in the east

East in that verse was an east that the author of Genesis understood. Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York; while the world considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern navigation, everything towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich England around the world to Samoa is East longitude, and everything towards sunset around the world to Samoa is West longitude. So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but if you were standing in Australia, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a matter of perspective.

For Bible purposes, the State of Israel is oftentimes regarded the geo-political center of the Earth. Its position is spiritually elevated too. So whenever you go to Jerusalem, you go up. And when you leave, you go down. It was from the east (east of Jerusalem) that magi came to pay their respects to the young Jesus (Mtt 2:1).

Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in Africa. But with what scientists know today about plate tectonics and past geophysical forces of nature, Africa is a shot in the dark.

The word Eden is from `eden (ay'-den) and/or `ednah (ed-naw') and means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very nice location and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley or Pleasant Acres.

†. Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed. And from the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food,

The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but there's no reason to doubt he was created right there in the garden; his intended home. And I think we can safely assume the garden was already viable and productive when Man arrived. God didn't just throw him in the water to sink or swim. He gave Man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of nomad; no, he had a place to settle down and call home.

So Man's first impression of his maker was one of caring, providence, and support. Adam was in no way a desperate cave man struggling to survive in a hostile world by courage, daring, and ingenuity. Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence who looked out for the unique creature made in His own image right from the first, and got him off to a good start.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

Some say that the fruit of those two trees was inert, and the effect they produced within people was spiritual, not biological— that the one would not actually make you live longer, nor would the other actually make you any wiser. But I'm not so sure about that. The world we live in today isn't precisely the very same world in which Adam lived. On average, people enjoyed much better health in those days than they do now— nor yet do we truly understand the original couple's nutritional requirements; since God modified Man's diet after the Flood was over.

The tree of life contained something that stops the aging process. Exactly how the ingredients of a natural fruit could be so rich in nourishment as to halt the aging process in the human body is unknown. A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology— the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet, gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.

The word for good in 2:9 is from towb (tobe) and means: good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well).

Towb isn't restricted to moral judgment. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be good.

The word for bad is from ra` (rah) and means: bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral)

ra', like towb, isn't restricted to moral discernment. It includes anything that is bad for us like poison ivy, playing with matches, E-coli, toxic chemicals, eating without washing your hands, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.

From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent what the author meant by "knowledge of good and bad". The expression implies an intuitive moral discernment in matters of right and wrong. Man was created innocent. Moral discernment wasn't programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn about things regarding ethics and morals via Divine tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative— and certainly not by doing something bad like eating off a forbidden tree to see what happens.

†. Gen 2:10 . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches.

The verb issues is yatsa' is in the present tense; so then whoever wrote Gen 2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet existed. The authorship of Genesis has yet to be positively established. A verse like 2:10 strongly suggests that the data used to compose Genesis, was progressively accumulated in hand-me-down journals or in oral rote, generated by people who lived prior to the final compiler's input.

It is very possible that the account of creation, and the garden of Eden, was at first recorded (or memorized) by Adam, who then passed his version down to trusted kin who in turn passed it down, along with input from their own eras, to their kin and thereby kept the name of God alive in a world composed mostly of people who care very little for knowledge of their maker.

It's not a bad idea for God-fearing parents to save the most important pieces of their biblical libraries and pass them on to their children in the hope of preventing their own posterity from losing the knowledge of God and subsequently sinking into worldly, dead-end theories and philosophies.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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 Eden River 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.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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 in the day 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.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
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.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 3:1b . . He said to the woman,

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.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 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.
/