• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Genesis Per Day

Discussion in 'Daily Devotionals' started by WebersHome, May 8, 2017.

  1. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 2:8-9

    Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,

    The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan (gan) which means a garden as fenced (or possibly just a tract with definite boundaries and dimensions). If walled, I assume to protect it from foraging animals; which makes sense seeing as how the garden would be Adam's primary food source. I'm guessing it was very likely a full-blown farm complete with grains, vegetables, and orchards; and meant for husbandry.

    Gen 2:8b . . in the east

    "east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood. Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago; 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 Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a matter of perspective.

    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 that's just 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 wasn't created right there in 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 the man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a place to settle down and call home.

    Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence who looked out for the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first, and got him off to a good start; which was fortunate because at that point in time, humans were an endangered species seeing as how there was only one breeding pair in existence.

    Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,

    The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has something in it that sustains immortality. It's also a good source for natural remedies (Rev 22:2). Exactly how the chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human body from getting old and falling apart is currently 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.

    Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

    The Hebrew word for "good" in 2:9 is from towb (tobe). It's an ambiguous word and isn't restricted to morals, ethics, or scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be towb.

    The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's another ambiguous word; and includes anything that's bad for us like poison ivy, playing with matches, E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals, salmonella, eating without washing your hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny stocks, walking on train tracks, pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.

    From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the knowledge of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated. A sense of right and wrong wasn't programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn right and wrong via Divine tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative-- and certainly not by doing something patently foolish like eating from a tree known to be unsuitable for human consumption.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  2. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 2:10-14

    Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,

    The verb "issues" is in grammatically present tense; indicating 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 compile 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.

    The Hebrew word for "river" is nahar (naw-hawr') which is another of those ambiguous Bible words. It can indicate a stream or a sea and/or metaphorically: prosperity. It was stated previously in Gen 2:6 that the face of the whole ground was watered by fog; which suggests that the Eden river was either an aquifer or something similar to the slow-moving water of the Florida everglades.

    Gen 2:10b-11 . . and it then divides and becomes four branches. The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah where there is gold,

    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.

    Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)

    Again, the author used a present tense verb. The gold "is" good, not was good-- strongly suggesting the author actually lived in the period he wrote about.

    As a money; gold has intrinsic value, whereas fiat currency as a money is worth little more than the good faith and dependability of the country that issues it. In other words: the US Government could, if it wished, simply outlaw the currency you have on hand and in an instant your paper money would be totally worthless. But gold has never been totally worthless.

    Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is easier to mine than others and some is a whole lot more plentiful. Placer gold for example is usually in the form of dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and washing. Hard rock gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock crushing, and refinement in smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in the form of nuggets.

    However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the author's use of the word "good" might just be saying that its gold is bountiful; as opposed to scarce. Gold can be found just about everywhere, but concentrations of it exist in only a relatively few places.

    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.

    In ancient Egypt lapis lazuli was a favorite stone for amulets and ornaments such as scarabs; it was also used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians for seals and jewelry. Lapis jewelry has been found at excavations of the Predynastic Egyptian site Naqada (3300–3100 BC), and powdered lapis was used as eye shadow by Cleopatra. In ancient Mesopotamia, lapis artifacts can be found in great abundance, with many notable examples having been excavated at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (2600-2500 BC).

    Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush.

    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.

    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 rivers of 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 Middle East a very beautiful and fertile region; but to look at it today; you'd never guess it.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  3. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 2:15-17

    Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, 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.

    FAQ: Why on earth would God plant a hazardous tree in an otherwise perfect environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a tree serve that has the potential to kill people and alter human consciousness? Why even create such a tree in the first place?

    A: Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was unfit for human consumption; but it wasn't necessarily a bad tree. When God finished creating, He looked over His work on the 6th day and pronounced it all not just good, but "very" good.

    Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice light has the potential to burn your skin and/or cause permanent eye damage.

    I don't know what that tree's purpose in the garden might have been but I'm confident it was no more intrinsically evil than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening, rattlesnakes, scorpions, avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles, tsunamis, the solar wind, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead, cadmium, and arsenic and hemlock are evil in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all fit into the natural scheme of things.

    Gen 2:15-17 is a favorite among critics because Adam didn't drop dead the day he tasted the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his son Seth (Gen 5:4). So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

    The first thing to point out is that in order for the warning to resonate in Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as he understood death in his own day rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In other words: Adam's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather spiritual.

    As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created with immortality. The animal kingdom was given nothing like it. That being the case, then I think it's safe to assume that death was common all around Adam by means of vegetation, birds, bugs, and beasts so that it wasn't a strange new word in his vocabulary; i.e. God didn't have to take a moment and define death for Adam seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence in his everyday life.

    Adam saw things born, he saw things grow to maturity, he saw things gradually wither, he saw their life ebb away, and he saw them decay and dissolve into nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that Adam was up to speed on at least the natural aspects of death; viz: he was familiar with mortality and he was familiar with immortality.

    Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.

    "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1Cor 15:53-54)

    In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've stayed forever 21, but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected with mortality-- he lost perpetual youth and began to age.

    Mortality is a walking death, and it's slow, but very relentless. It's like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie character; The Terminator-- it feels neither pain nor pity, nor remorse nor fear; it cannot be reasoned with nor can it be bargained with, and it absolutely will not stop-- ever --until you are dead; really dead, like as in deceased.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  4. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  5. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 2:18-20

    Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I will make a fitting helper for him.

    That is a curious statement considering that God had given His creation an evaluation of "very good" back in Gen 1:31. Well; that evaluation was stated when the job was all done. In this section, we're discovering what went on during the sixth day before the job was all done.

    Adam's construction came out exactly as God wished; which means that Adam's creator deliberately made the man reliant upon a suitable companion right from the very get-go; i.e. Eve wasn't a "fix" to address an unforeseen problem like the many that plagued NASA during the Apollo program.

    "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 isn't spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve wasn't meant to be the man's Girl Friday, rather; someone to strengthen him. In other words: woman's true role is a supporting role rather than a leading role; i.e. domineering women are out of sync with humanity's creator. The same goes for masculine women-- viz: so-called strong women.

    I suspect 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 crutch. In other words: wives are really at their best when they strengthen their men to go out that door and face the big, bad, mean world.

    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 male human life was packaged in a box of software, one of its system requirements would be Female Companion.

    Woman's potential for companionship is the primary reason that God made her-- not for her sensual appeal nor for her reproductive value; no, for a man's companionship; which is commonly expressed by cordiality, friendliness, friendship, goodwill, kindness, civility, concord, harmony, rapport, charity, generosity, compassion, empathy, sympathy, chumminess, intimacy, affection, devotion, loyalty, fondness, and love.

    From all that, I think we can safely conclude that a woman who tears her man down instead of building him up is a broken woman; i.e. maladjusted.

    Now; before God introduced the man to a woman, He first gave the man an opportunity to seek appropriate companionship from among the creatures of the animal kingdom. The results were unsatisfactory; and no surprise there seeing as how critters aren't equipped to relate with humans on a high enough level.

    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;

    Adam's task would have been overwhelming if as many varieties existed in his day as ours; which I honestly don't think did because, for one thing, prior to the existence of humans the earth underwent some mass extinction events.

    I'm sure Adam loved animals; I mean look: he gave them all names; which is something that people who make their living in animal husbandry try to avoid because the practice can lead to attachments; thus making the situation very difficult when it's time for sale and/or slaughter.

    My wife's kindergarten class visits a working dairy farm every year where all the cows and the calves have number tags stapled in their ears. On the books, those numbers are the bovines' names; but in a matter of minutes, my wife's kinders give the little calves real names because it's just in human nature to do that. (I named one White Shoulder because it had an epaulette of pale hair on its right shoulder)

    But as cute and cuddly as some critters are, they just don't have what it takes to be the kind of companion that a man really needs

    Gen 2:20b . . but for Adam no fitting helper was found.

    That's telling me that people who prefer a pet's companionship to a human's are out of kilter because pets, even as soothing as they are in some situations, are unbefitting-- they're a lower form of conscious life than people; and God didn't create them to be people's personal companions anyway, no, according to Gen 1:26-28 He created them to be people's servants.

    I think that even to this day, were most normal people given a choice between human companionship and that of a pet; they would opt for the human because people relate to each other much better than they relate to critters; either wild or domesticated.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  6. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 2:21-23a

    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 tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how tsela' should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam included some of his flesh; and seeing as how the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) then I think it's safe to assume that the flesh God took from Adam's body to construct the woman contained some of his blood too.

    In other words: we can accept "rib" if we allow it a description similar to a barbecued rib; a serving that contains not bone alone rather, bone, blood, and meat.

    The most important thing to note in that passage is that Eve wasn't created directly from the soil as Adam was, viz: she wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. Eve wasn't her own unique specie.

    Being as Eve was created from Adam's flesh, blood, and bones, then the flesh, blood, and bones of her body were reproductions of his flesh, blood, and bones. Therefore any and all progeny produced by Eve's body, whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived, would consist of Adam's body, i.e. they would be his progeny just as much as Eve's if any part of her body was in any way at all involved in the conception.

    This section makes it appear that the woman was brought into existence after the completion of the sixth day. But according to Gen 1:27, the male and the female were both created at the very same time on the very same day. In point of fact, the entire human species was created that day. It's easy to figure out because God completed the cosmos on the sixth day. From thence He went on a perpetual sabbatical.

    "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-- the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." (Gen 1:31-2:1)

    If it was all very good, and all completed, then there was nothing else left to do.

    FAQ: So; where was the woman prior to her actual appearance on the scene?

    A: She was in Adam's body.

    That's not a strange new idea. For example: Heb 7:9-10 says that Levi was in Abraham's body; and that was literally centuries before Levi was born.

    Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

    Why wasn't Eve given an opportunity to fit in with the animal kingdom before introducing her to Adam? Well, I think it's because men can make do with a hound dog and/or a soccer ball named Wilson if they have to; but normal women, as a rule, can't.

    Men and Women share a lot of similarities; but the resolve to go it solo, to be a rugged individual, is not one of them. There are exceptions, of course; but as a rule, women do not care to live alone and unloved in the world. It's curious, but when we think of hermits; our minds typically think of them as male because female hermits just seem so contrary to nature.

    Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim: Hot diggity dog! Now I can get lucky! No he didn't say that at all.

    Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.

    In other words: the woman was kin; somebody Adam could relate to; and the expression became an idiom. (e.g. Gen 29:13-14)

    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. Therefore wives who aren't their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can only be accepted as cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality. Married men shackled to a maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in a perpetual cold war.

    The one who designed a man said it is not good for a man to live alone. And if it's not good for a man to live alone, then it goes without saying that it's not good for a woman either. If men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women should be happier with a man. In other words: mankind's designer didn't intend men and women to function independently of each other. They were created to be together; as couples.

    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.

    It's said that dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs are domesticated beasts. They might bring a man his slippers, guard his property, and lick his face; but a dog lacks the capacity to be concerned that a man isn't eating right and getting enough rest and/or sympathize with a man when his job is outsourced to cheap labor in India. How many dogs shared their master's alarm when the housing bubble burst in 2008 and Wall Street fell off a cliff resulting in thousands of people all over the globe to suddenly find themselves unemployed and losing their homes? Had one done so, that would've been a very unusual dog.

    No; a man's true BFF is a loyal woman that looks out for him.

    Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
    Giving all your love to just one man
    You'll have bad times, and he'll have good times
    Doin' things that you don't understand

    But if you love him, you'll forgive him
    Even though he's hard to understand
    And if you love him, oh be proud of him
    'Cause after all he's just a man.

    Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
    And something warm to come to
    When nights are cold and lonely.
    Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
    Keep giving all the love you can.
    (Stand By Your Man, Tammy Wynette and Billy Sherrill, Epic Records, 1968)
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  7. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 2:23b-25

    Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she taken.

    The Hebrew 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 indicate another species of human life (e.g. Lilith) it just simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin.

    The word "taken" is accurate enough but in my estimation, "extracted" would be better because the woman was in Adam all along; same goes for all the rest of us too. We weren't created the day we were conceived; rather, we were created the day that Adam was brought into existence. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

    Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,

    Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy spouses because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking about that kind of clinging. It seems to me more like reliance and dependence; and if a man can't rely and/or depend upon his wife; who can he rely and/or depend upon?

    You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got the wrong idea about what it means to hook up with somebody.

    There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that verse comes from the very same word as woman— 'ishshah. What makes an ishshah somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man.

    You don't own me
    I'm not just one of your many toys
    You don't own me
    Don't say I can't go with other boys.

    The lyrics of that song-- originally recorded by Lesley Gore in 1963 --depict a defiant girl standing up to a possessive boyfriend. Well; those lyrics may be true for temporary lovers; but are very contrary to God's thinking when it comes to marriage.

    Anyway; there comes a time in every youth's life when it's time for him to grow up, sever the apron strings, leave home, become his own man, and take up residence with his own woman.

    Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that his mother is another man's woman. When my son was around 29 years old and home for Christmas one year, his mother and I were having a disagreement and he stuck up for her. I had to take my son aside and school him that it is a serious breach of male etiquette to come between a man and his wife. I let him get by with it that time; but in another man's home his meddling just might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.

    Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.

    The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6 and Rom 7:1-3, this particular unification is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't limited to marriage; it takes effect even when people sleep around; ergo: when a man sleeps with a woman, any woman, he becomes bonded to her for life, and she with him. Whether they agree to it or not makes no difference because God's decree trumps His creatures' feelings about it.

    Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they felt no shame

    They were naked at first, but there's really no reason to believe that they would've remained that way. I mean, after all, human skin is not all that tough. They would need to protect themselves from dirt and grime, and from sunburn, cuts, bruises, and abrasions. The thing to note is that at this point of their existence, they lacked a sense of propriety.

    Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.

    I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.

    In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam was a product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. 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 buff.

    Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure 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 their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

    That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  8. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:1a

    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).

    According to Christ, Mr. 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)

    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 Matt 4:1-11 that Christ saw it, and spoke with it. From that passage it's obvious that the Serpent is capable of human speech, understands human needs and weaknesses, believes in the existence of God, understands the concept of worship, a master of sophistry, 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; and it did. (Eph 2:1-3)

    The Serpent seems possessed with a strange, criminal mentality: beyond comprehension. But then, so are pedophiles, serial killers, unabombers, ISIS extremists, terrorists, and men like Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka, Ted Kaczynski, and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of criminals are prisoners of dark minds clouded with anti-social inclinations. The Serpent, though surely an incredible genius; is nonetheless an evil genius; not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action comics.

    Psychopaths are a cunning breed of predators who lack empathy, remorse, and impulse control; readily violating social rules and exploiting others to get what they want. Curiously, psychopaths are often so charming and manipulative that they are well-concealed behind a mask of normalcy sometimes for years and even their entire lives.

    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?

    I don't know; but one thing is for sure though: the Serpent's fondness for deceit is living proof that angels are not mindless robots created to obey the will of God without thought or question. No; they too have a mind of their own, and the freedom of choice between good and evil-- the very same choices that Man is at liberty to exercise. Satan chose poorly, and his human counterparts oftentimes do too.

    The event recorded in this third chapter is a bit of an enigma. The reason being that not only can God see the future as if watching a video recording, but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the event in this chapter wasn't unexpected; and God could have, had He wished, easily prevented it.

    People get upset with the all-powerful loving God for not stepping in and preventing the so-called fall of man. But they need to remember that humanity wasn't created to be the subject of domestication and animal husbandry-- i.e. beasts --no, people were created in the image and likeness of God, and given complete dominion over the entire Earth. In that capacity humanity is at liberty to manage its own affairs as if it were a divine sovereign. (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Ps 82:6)

    Besides; does anybody really want to live in a micro-managed Big Brother society? I don't think so. But that's the logic behind just about every product liability lawsuit. Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to cure humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability lawsuits go after suppliers who provide the means.

    God gave humanity the liberty to build itself up and/or tear itself down; and actually, that's the way many of us prefer it because we want to be our own guiding lights rather than have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics manage our lives for us without our consent.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  9. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States

    Genesis 3:1b-4

    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 boogie man.

    The woman displayed no recorded astonishment whatsoever when the Serpent spoke to her; which suggests it had associated 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.

    That's actually a pretty effective sales approach. Many years ago I sold vacuum cleaners for a little while. I was trained to engage potential customers in chit-chat, a.k.a. small talk, to break the ice and get them to let their guards down. In other words; to build some trust before I got down to the predatory business of talking them into buying something expensive that they could easily get by without.

    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, the woman wasn't even aware that something called dishonesty 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?

    Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning to female? Well, Adam was a tougher nut to crack because he got his intel straight from the horse's mouth. 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 correctly; or worse; that he didn't know what he was talking about. I mean: isn't there more than one way to interpret the Bible? How do you know your way is the right way?

    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.

    Is that really what God said? No, that's not what God said. He forbad their eating the fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)

    The woman failed to repeat what God said, rather, she interpreted what He said. Apparently, in her mind's eye, the ban on eating the fruit implied not touching it. Consequently; the woman's humanistic reasoning put a spin on God's instructions so that instead of following them to the letter, she revised them to mean something that God didn't actually say.

    The woman fell prey to a very human weakness-- not only of interpreting God, but of a tendency to embellish His rules and make them more cumbersome and more strict than they really are.

    Revisions in the form of interpretations change the meanings of God's sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While often containing a kernel of truth, revisions are nevertheless not pure truth, rather, 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.

    Revisions are also very useful for manipulating people to favor the Serpent's wishes rather than their creator's. Thus, without their knowing it, they fall in line and become the Serpent's sheep instead of Christ's.

    Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,

    Having already tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions, and found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to influence her thinking a bit more.

    Hence, we have the beginnings of what's known as deceptive ambiguity. In other words; the Serpent's statement can be understood in more ways than one. Without an explanation, the woman was left to her own imagination as to what the Serpent meant. But it likely never occurred to her to ask for clarification.

    The Serpent was aware that the forbidden fruit wasn't toxic, i.e. the woman wouldn't get sick and die from eating it; that much of his statement was true. But it was a half-truth rather than the whole truth. What he didn't tell the woman was that death via the fruit would come to her by means of Adam eating it rather than her own eating.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  10. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:5

    Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

    If someone presented you with an opportunity to bring your mind up to the level of God's intelligence, and you didn't know any better, wouldn't you take it? I think so.

    The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue. In time their eyes were opened and they became conscious of good and evil. (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22)

    FAQ: How did the Serpent know that they would become conscious of good and evil?

    A: He had the ability to make it happen.

    Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that their creator was withholding the tree, not because it was poisonous or anything like that; but to keep the humans in check: much in the way that some of the world's despots utilize illiteracy, control of radio and television programming, restricted contact with foreigners, and limited internet access to keep their citizens subdued.

    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.

    In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for the Serpent's cunning nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat wasn't inevitable. She could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to her guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again until the Serpent got disgusted and gave up. She also could've talked the matter over with her husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's instructions early on and left her husband out of it; thus laying the groundwork for the utter ruin of her own posterity.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  11. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:6

    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 tree wasn't poisonous if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the tree.

    Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes,

    Most fruits and vegetables are appealing-- just look at bananas and pears and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and carrots, and radishes, and plums and mangoes and strawberries and whatever. God doubtless made them that way so Man could not only nourish himself, but also enjoy his food; viz: not only eat because he has to, but also because he'd like to.

    Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,

    The Hebrew word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal') which essentially means circumspect, i.e. sensible; which Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences, viz: prudence.

    People with a high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life while those of us with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide what's best.

    Sakal shows up no less than thirteen times in the book of Proverbs alone, and is always depicted as desirable; so it's not like the woman was wanting something that was eo ipso bad for her.

    Anyway, she probably figured that a fruit as attractive to the eye, and appealing to one's mind, as that of the forbidden tree couldn't possibly be as bad as God led them to believe. I mean, if it at least had some sharp needles like cactus pears, or maybe a prickly surface like a pineapple, then it would at least have been a bit intimidating; but the forbidden fruit was nothing like that; no, it looked very benevolent.

    NOTE: Ironically, the woman's first step towards obtaining wisdom was to do something really stupid.

    Gen 3:6d . . she took of its fruit and ate.

    The important thing to note at this point, is that the woman was unaffected by the fruit: she experienced no ill side effects and went right on naked as usual; feeling no shame about it whatsoever.

    Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

    Did the woman first deftly dice the fruit and camouflage it in a tasty parfait so her husband wouldn't know what he was eating? No; according to 1Tim 2:14 Adam went into it with eyes wide open.

    I have to wonder why the husband followed his wife's lead and did something he knew full well to be breaking God's edict and putting himself at risk of death. Genesis doesn't reveal why Adam chose to eat the fruit. I suppose he had his reasons, but apparently God didn't think they were sufficient to excuse the man's defiance.

    But I think Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on his wife for some time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he surely had to wonder if maybe he misunderstood God.

    I think most husbands would sympathize with Adam. I mean: he was told by a supposedly competent source that the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption. But here's your wife sitting right beside you happily munching away and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a reasonable man supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that?
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  12. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:7

    Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

    Adam was warned that he would lose immortality by tasting the forbidden fruit, but it appears he wasn't warned about this new perception of themselves; at least not on record. If we can safely read between the lines, then we may assume that he and God discussed this issue during one of their daily meetings. And again, the prophets didn't record everything they knew. For example; prophecy predicted that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (Matt 2:19-23) but good luck finding that in the Old Testament because it isn't there.

    It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so-called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From whence did the woman get it?

    She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after the woman was born; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to her by means of procreation.

    In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral perception; but now I seriously doubt it because the woman was the first to eat it, and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went about in the buff as usual; the woman's self awareness was unchanged, and her feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that the woman began to think that full frontal nudity is indecent; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

    Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives: either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

    He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

    The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

    FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

    A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the world, they would come via a male's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

    FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of the womb?

    A: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)

    NOTE: I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting blame away from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to believe biological fathers propagate the fallen nature; when it's been the Serpent all along. How he has managed to deceive so many people for so long a time I don't know, but what's really cool about it is that there are people behind pulpits, and chairing whole Sunday school departments, helping him do it as unsuspecting accomplices.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2020
  13. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:8-11

    Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day;

    The Hebrew word for "voice" is somewhat ambiguous. It can not only indicate a vocal sound, but lots of other kinds of noises too; e.g. horns, crackling, snapping, cackling, bleating, tweeting, roaring, whooshing, swishing, hissing, barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al.

    Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among the trees of the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man and said to him: Where are you?

    Since God is omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to mean: Adam; come out, come out, wherever you are!

    Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.

    Adam wasn't totally disrobed; just partially. But even that degree of undress lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong. But the thing to note is Adam's unease in the presence of God while lacking what he thought in his own mind to be appropriate clothing.

    This incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer, normally comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men, would probably want to put something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)

    Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?

    In other words: who said undress is indecent? Where'd you get that idea?

    Well; nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's indecent-- the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No; they just "felt" it's indecent. In other words; it was their new perception of right and wrong telling them that undress is indecent. Unfortunately, their newly acquired moral compass was unreliable; the reason being they didn't get it from God.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  14. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:12-14b

    Gen 3:12 . .The man said: The woman You put at my side-- she gave me of the tree, and I ate.

    Adam attempted to get himself off the hook by accusing God of entrapment.

    Like: "This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't imposed that female upon me. Did I ask for a wife? NO! And what kind of person is this woman you gave me anyway? She has managed to ruin my life in very short order. Is this your concept of the perfect companion for a man?"

    Gen 3:13 . . And Yhvh God said to the woman: What is this you have done? The woman replied: The serpent duped me, and I ate.

    That's a very popular excuse even still today; like when it turned out that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion; fomer US President Bush said he was given some bad information.

    The first couple exhibited early-on a very common aspect of human nature of which all of us are so familiar-- blaming others for the way we act. I once worked in a boatyard with a very hot tempered man. Previous to his employment with us, we had another with just about the same temperament who quit right before the second one signed on. Some time later, the new guy got irate about something or other and said: Now I know why that other guy was difficult. You made him that way. (chuckle) Wasn't that a perfectly natural excuse?

    I dated a girl like that once. When I pointed out one day that she was behaving peevishly; she retorted: "I'm only responding to you". (chuckle) Ms. Peevish employed the age-old excuse of blaming someone else for the way she acted when really the blame was just simply her own lack of self-control; which can be roughly defined as inadequate restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, and/or desires.

    Gen 3:14a . .Then the Lord God said to the serpent:

    A marked departure in procedure is very evident here. God gave the humans an opportunity to defend themselves; but not so with Mr. Serpent. On the page of scripture, the trial phase was skipped and proceedings went straight to the sentencing stage just like Osama Bin Laden's assassination. It's almost as if the Serpent had already discussed with God how it planned to turn the humans against Him; like when it later moved against Job.

    One thing for sure about the Serpent; it is an utterly condemned individual. Repentance is out of the question and definitely NOT an option. Its destiny was determined long, long ago.

    "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41)

    The apostle John saw the Serpent's fate; like a video clip from the future.

    "And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10)

    It is only too obvious that the Serpent crossed over a line somewhere in the past and now there is no going back. Humanity is redeemable; but the Serpent is beyond hope. The scary part is: the Serpent is not only doomed, but busy making every effort to take as many people down with it as possible-- like a disgruntled postal worker coming in one day and cutting loose on everybody with a shotgun.

    Gen 3:14b . . Because you did this, more cursed shall you be than all cattle and all the wild beasts:

    The Hebrew word for "curse" is from 'arar (aw-rar') which means: to execrate. Webster's defines execrate as: to declare to be evil or detestable; viz: denounce. Synonyms listed for execrate are: hate, abhor, abominate, detest, and loathe. When the Bible's God has those kinds of feelings for someone; they are really in trouble.

    But what really caught my attention is that God implied cattle and beasts would be cursed too. Up ahead we'll see that even the soil would be cursed. In other words: Adam's progeny would never live on the planet as it was when their ancient grandparents were created. We today exist on a cursed world.

    In point of fact, an article in the January 15 edition of Scientific American magazine said: "Earth is past its prime and the biosphere is nearing its end. All things considered, our planet is only marginally habitable."

    The third chapter began by stating that the Serpent was more cunning than any of the beasts of the field, a creature that began with a level of dignity way over and beyond the land animals; but fell to a position of esteem far below them because of what it did to the Adams family. In other words, the Serpent is now lower than the lowest thing on the face of the earth.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  15. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:14c

    Gen 3:14c . . On your belly shall you crawl and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life.

    Ancient Jews thought maybe the Serpent was originally equipped with feet.

    T. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. (Targum Jonathan)

    It's probably best to interpret Gen 3:14c as poetic language because I have never seen, nor yet heard of, a species of snake that eats soil for its food. True, snakes crawl on their bellies; but they probably always did; because that's the way they're designed. Some snakes live in trees and others live in water. Those kinds don't spend a whole lot of time on the ground so not all snakes are alike. I really don't think snakes crawl because they were condemned to crawl. Nor was every species of snake condemned; just the one snake in verse 14.

    A person who crawls and eats dirt is typically someone held in very low regard; in other words: a worm. And "all the days of your life" is saying that God's low opinion of the Serpent will never be rescinded.

    Serpents will eat dirt in the kingdom of God; possibly as a perpetual reminder of Man's first great mistake.

    "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent's food shall be earth." (Isa 65:25)

    Today, snakes don't eat earth, they eat prey. How serpents will survive on dirt is unclear, unless their digestive system will be changed to that of a night crawler.

    Serpents are never portrayed in the Bible as beneficial to Man. They are always of the poisonous variety and a serious threat to Man's health and well being. That will all be different in the kingdom of God.

    "A babe shall play over a viper's hole, and an infant pass his hand over an adder's den. In all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done; for the land shall be filled with devotion to the Lord as water covers the sea. In that day, the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a standard to peoples-- nations shall seek his counsel and his abode shall be honored." (Isa 11:8-10)

    NOTE: Targums aren't translations; rather, very old Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew bible. They were authoritative, and spoken aloud in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftarah readings.

    Public readings of the scriptures in ancient synagogues were accompanied by commentary in Aramaic because that was the spoken language of most Jews in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era. The normal practice was that after each verse was read from the sacred Torah scroll, an official commentator known as the Turgeman, or Meturgeman, would then recite orally an Aramaic explanation; usually from memory.

    Targums were utilized in the synagogues before, during, and after the times of Christ-- being necessary because many of the Jewish people of that day could not understand Hebrew.

    The major Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that were revised in Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum has come to light-- Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. The best known Babylonian Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan.

    Targums are important as evidence for a history of thought among the Jewish communities in Israel and abroad during Christ's day.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  16. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:15-16

    Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman,

    The Hebrew word for enmity indicates hostility; i.e. ill will. Never again would the Serpent be allowed to get chummy with Eve nor would she ever again trust him like she once did. From now on, the woman would eye the Serpent with suspicion; so he would have to figure out ways to deceive the humans indirectly rather than one-on-one face to face.

    Gen 3:15b . . And between your offspring and her offspring.

    The word for "offspring" is from zera' (zeh'-rah) which is an ambiguous Hebrew word that technically means seed; but not always the biological kind. It can also mean a product and/or a result (e.g. Isa 53:10) and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and posterity.

    To my knowledge, none of Eve's children were virgin-conceived; but even had they been, those would've still been Adam's children because her body was made with materials taken from his.

    It's pretty much agreed by upon by Christians that Eve's predicted offspring found its fulfillment in Christ.

    "When the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman" (Gal 4:4)

    Gen 3:15c . . Hers will pound your head,

    "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the Devil" (Heb 2:14)

    Gen 3:15d . . and yours will bite his heel.

    Who were the "yours"? Well, as much as is known; the Devil doesn't reproduce. So his progeny shouldn't be thought of as biological. Judas Iscariot is certainly a likely candidate; but in my opinion, he's a red herring.

    Romans carried out the dirty business of crucifying Christ, but his own countrymen are responsible for getting him executed. (Matt 26:3-5, Act 7:52)

    Jesus told his Jewish enemies face to face that they were the Serpent's offspring. (John 8:44)

    NOTE: I suggest keeping all of the above under your hat lest by blabbing about it you get yourself accused of anti-Semitism.

    Gen 3:16a . . And to the woman He said: I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing;

    The Hebrew word for "pangs" is 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means: worrisome-ness. Webster's defines worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or inclined to worry or fret; viz: anxiety, insecurity, and perhaps melancholy.

    For many women, the preggers stage of motherhood is often characterized by bloating, illness, nausea, depression, anxiety, insecurity, and irritability. For them, pregnancy is more like a curse than the intended blessing of Gen 1:28.

    Gen 3:16b . . in pain shall you bear children.

    It's difficult to imagine bearing children without pain because that's the way it's always been right from the beginning, even with Eve's very first child. Apparently before Man's fall, having a baby would've caused no more discomfort than doing one's business in the ladies room-- and just as lacking in danger to mom and infant.

    The thing to note is: this particular punishment was unexpected; viz: it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit.

    Something else that's notable is that neither the Serpent nor the tree's chemistry, played a role in Eve's new circumstances. God said "I will make". In other words; the physical and emotional unpleasantries associated with bearing children came about via the hand of God.

    There's more.

    Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband,

    The Hebrew of that passage is apparently somewhat difficult; not even the great rabbis Rashi and Ramban were in agreement how best to interpret it. But it appears to me simply the very first prohibition against adultery and pre-marital intimacy.

    Precisely why God waited till this moment to lay down some moral law is a mystery; but suggests to me that even had they not eaten the forbidden fruit, He would've gotten around to it; after all, in the beginning, Adam and his wife knew nothing of right and wrong.

    I believe it's reasonable to assume that their association with God would've eventually included some form of catechism because left to themselves, it would've been natural for the first couple, in their innocence, to assume it was okay to sleep with everybody and anybody that opportunity afforded.

    And then there's this:

    Gen 3:16d . . and he shall rule over you.

    That is probably one of the most hated verses in the book of Genesis. Eve's daughters do not like to be subjugated to, and/or dominated by, men. It really goes against their grain; and if the women's suffrage movement that took place in America's early 1900's were to be thoroughly analyzed, it would not surprise me that women's right to vote wasn't really a political issue: it was rebellion against male supremacy; which of course is to be expected in a world gone mad with evil.

    The current "strong woman" attitude is no doubt another aspect of that same kind of rebellion; which in reality is not only a standing up to men, but also a standing up to God seeing as how Gen 3:16d is a divine requirement rather than human.

    My guess is that the purpose of Gen 3:16d is mostly to discourage wives from making life-changing decisions on their own, independent of their husband's feelings about it. I mean; if Eve had first consulted with her husband to see what he thought of the Serpent's discussion before tasting the fruit, things may have turned out quite differently.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  17. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:17-20

    Gen 3:17a . .To Adam He said: Because you did as your wife said, and ate of the tree about which I commanded you; "You shall not eat of it"

    A portion of God's gripe with Adam was that he put a subordinate creature's wishes over and above the wishes of the creature's superior; thus forcing God to compete for Adam's loyalty; i.e. a rival. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between pleasing women or pleasing God; men all too often sell their souls to the women. (cf. Luke 14:26)

    Gen 3:17b . . Cursed be the ground because of you

    That was unexpected; it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit. It's likely discipline relative to Adam's throwing God over for his wife.

    Not only would Man himself be effected by a curse upon the ground, but every living thing that depends upon the ground for its survival would be effected too; from lowly nematodes and earthworms right on up to the top of the food chain. The whole animal world, and all the seed-bearing plant life too, would suffer collateral damages for Adam's mistake.

    God somehow manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now no longer produces as well as it did in the beginning. Seeing as how He invented soil's chemistry in the first place, then it likely wasn't too difficult for Him to alter it's behavior.

    Unfortunately the abundant swarms of life that God created in the beginning would, at that point, begin to thin out as the competition for available natural food stuffs would begin to intensify.

    Gen 3:17c . . By toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life

    Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him tending the garden. But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The word for "toil" is from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means the very same thing as it did in Gen 3:16.

    The element of 'itstsabown took some of the pleasure out of Adam's existence. Where before his daily routine was relatively care-free, now he'd begin to worry and fret over things that are especially pertinent to farmers e.g. weather, insects, and plant diseases; which, among farmers, are common causes of anxiety and feelings of insecurity.

    Gen 3:18a . . thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you.

    God finished the entire cosmos in six days; and no more creating took place after that because He's been on sabbatical ever since day 7: so thorns and thistles already existed prior to the events of chapter 3.

    But in the beginning, noxious plants doubtless weren't so dominant. Today they're a nuisance because if ground is left fallow, it will soon be covered with dock, mustard, dandelion, chaparral, wild flowers, brambles, reed canary grass, and stuff like that. Those kinds of plants may be okay for wildlife, but humanity needs something quite a bit more nutritious.

    Gen 3:18b . . and your food shall be the grasses of the field;

    Apparently Adam was a fruitarian at first, and then his diet later expanded to include other kinds of vegetation. However, I don't think Man is supposed to graze on pasture like buffalo or deer and elk. Many of the grasses God intended for him to eat fall into the food group we call cereals; which are raised primarily for their grain; e.g. corn, wheat, oats, and rice; et al. In their natural form-- whole grain --cereals are a rich source of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. After refinement grains are pretty much good for nothing but carbs.

    Gen 3:19a . . By the sweat of your brow shall you get bread to eat,

    Adam was given a farm complete with orchards already in place and producing before he came along; all he had to do was take care of it. But now, if he wanted a farm, he was going to have to make one of his own, on his own; from scratch. Plus he'll be faced with stubborn soil that needs plowing, sowing, and weeding. Very few natural grains exist abundantly in nature. These days; if he wants them in any sizable amount, Man has to farm.

    Those of us who live in 9 to 5 leisure-intensive America really don't appreciate just how laborious and time consuming the work is to grow your own food. Early humanity's days were hard. They're still hard in many developing countries. Adam had to get out there with a hoe and a plow to provide for his family. Today, only about 2% in the USA work the soil for a living.

    Gen 3:19b . . until you return to the ground-- for from it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

    Did God have to smite Adam in order for him to stop living? No; it was only necessary to deny Adam access to the tree of life and let nature and hard work take their toll. In other words: since he was no longer immortal, it would be only a matter of time before Adam simply gave out and passed away from wear and tear and old age.

    But what happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did he return to dust too? No; and that's because Adam wasn't entirely organic. His body came from the soil; but according to Gen 2:7, his consciousness came from God. The afterlife disposition of human consciousness is one of life's greatest mysteries. Heck, even the origin of human consciousness is mystery enough for some, let alone where it goes when people pass away.

    Gen 3:20 . .The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

    According to the Bible, humanity wasn't created in groups nor in swarms like the other nephesh. The human race was created in its entirety a singular, solo, male specimen. Every human being since, including the first woman, came from the constitutional elements of that one lone male; and subsequently, his wife.

    "He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26)

    Everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was; every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species; is related to Eve.
    (Adapted from Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot")

    NOTE: The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces all forms of life back to a singular genetic heritage regardless of species. In other words; if you started with a raccoon, and followed its branch down the tree far enough, you'd eventually intersect with another branch that you could then trace to mushrooms. The tree is sort of the equivalent of a Big Bang of living things.

    The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be linked to a common human ancestor; which of course is no surprise to Bible students.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2020
  18. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:21-22

    Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

    Precisely what species of animal God slaughtered in order to make the Adams their first suit of real clothing is unknown.

    That day, humans learned something about the advantages of leather goods. Most of it is produced from cattle hides: calfskin, goatskin, kidskin, sheepskin, and lambskin. Other hides and skins used include those of the horse, pig, kangaroo, deer, crocodile, alligator, seal, walrus, and of late; python. Humans have used animal skins for a variety of practical purposes since ancient times, and to this good day leather is still a useful material all around the world.

    The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified; the Hebrew words kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the shoulder.

    A garment hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's topless days were over; although that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that she may have become the Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day and created some interesting necklines.

    The garments actually facilitated the people's association with God. They were unbearably uncomfortable around their maker in the buff, even in the semi-buff, and that was principally the reason they hid from the Lord when He came calling. However, fig leaves aren't very durable; they're merely an expedient. God showed them a much better way-- actually a way they would never have thought of all by themselves because who would have guessed that animals could be killed and stripped of their hides for clothing until God showed them?

    The point to note is that the clothing that humanity's maker crafted for the Adams didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the slightest bit of labor to its construction. God slaughtered the animals, treated the hides, and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave the clothing to them totally free of charge and no strings attached. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the couple watched how God went about the whole business so they'd know how to take care of themselves.

    NOTE: They'd eventually have to know how to make fire; no doubt God showed them how to do that too.

    I believe God went to all that trouble for a couple of reasons.

    First; because He wasn't indifferent to their situation; rather, God felt compassion for the Adams-- defined as sympathetic awareness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. And secondly; He didn't want anything hampering His association with the humans. In other words, Adam's felt-shame and embarrassment over undress was a barrier between himself and his maker, so God showed him a really good way to overcome it: a way that not only improved the quality of Adam's association with God; but also greatly enhanced his limited survival skills.

    Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of us

    Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". i.e. a fellow deity of equal status.

    In other words; Adam made himself divine, i.e. a fellow deity of equal status by placing his own wants ahead of his creator's.

    From the limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's fairly easy to make one's self a deity; it's only necessary to rebel against constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with the laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power; viz: anarchy. (cf. Judg 17:6 and Isa 53:6)

    Gen 3:22b . . discerning good and evil,

    Actually, the Serpent had predicted that very thing.

    "God knows that when you eat [from the tree in the midst of the garden] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5)

    Now, the problem is; this newly acquired conscience of theirs wasn't from God, it was obtained from the Serpent who, we're told, has the power of death and the ability to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not easily detected. (Heb 2:14, Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

    As such, humanity's sense of right and wrong is unreliable. Due to its satanic nature rather than truly divine, the human moral compass easily deviates from true north by means of emotional, social, cultural, and ethnical influences. We rationalize a lot too.

    Gen 3:22c . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!

    The Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits.

    Adam contracted mortality via eating from the other tree. Had God allowed him access to the tree of life, it's fruit would've healed the mortality infecting his body and restored it to immortality.

    The thing is: God predicted Adam's demise; so in order to ensure that the prediction came to pass; God had to cut off his access to the tree of life; which is a pretty interesting tree seeing as how it's not only an elixir, but also a remedy for whatever ails you. (Rev 22:2)
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2020
  19. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 3:23-24

    Gen 3:23 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken.

    One of the societal problems associated with STDs is the development of treatments for those kinds of diseases. The treatments are not bad per se; the problem is that knowing that there's treatments emboldens people to indulge in immorality.

    In other words: had God allowed the man continued access to the garden, no doubt he and his wife would've included the forbidden fruit in their diets on a regular basis because there would be little to fear from its effects due to the ready availability of fruit from the tree of life. They would, as it's said, have their cake and eat it too.

    Gen 3:24 . . He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

    This is the Bible's first mention of cherubim. They show up now and again in the Old Testament upwards of 90 times. Their description as per Ezek 1:1-28 and Ezek 10:1-22 suggests that they may be symbolic visions rather than realities.

    Another classification of celestial beings are the seraphim (e.g. Isa 6:2).

    I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its flaming sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people could go and see it for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it. But for some reason, there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to that area.

    Well; were that cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in our day, I should think it would draw more people to it than even Mecca because it would definitely be a wonder to behold, but I suspect that back then people were afraid to go anywhere near it.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2020
  20. WebersHome

    WebersHome Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Genesis 4:1

    Gen 4:1a . . Now the man knew his wife Eve,

    Throughout the Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common idiom for people sleeping together.

    There is more to knowledge than just information. Some kinds of knowledge can't be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by personal experience.

    Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's one thing for a young man to learn things about girls from looking at their pictures and reading about them in biology books and/or in magazines like Cosmopolitan, and Maxim; but it's quite another learning experience to actually cuddle with a girl and sleep with her skin to skin.

    Genesis records no human intimacy in the garden prior to Man's eviction; but that doesn't prove none occurred; it just proves that none is mentioned till the fourth chapter.

    Gen 4:1b . . and she conceived and bore Cain, saying: I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord.

    God wrapped creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and rested after that. Not because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that time, the human race was all done too. Everyone since then has just been a reproduction of Adam.

    "It was you who created my consciousness; you fashioned me in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am awesomely, wondrously made; your work is wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from you when I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in your book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of them." (Ps 139:13-16)

    The writer of that Psalm believed that God saw him way before he was ever conceived in his mother's womb. In fact; saw his substance in the recesses of the earth before his mom even conceived: which attests that everyone pre-exists in Adam because he alone was actually created directly from "the recesses of the earth". Everyone else stems from Adam's organic tissues and it's just a matter of time before the right combination of genes brings them out.

    "Just as you do not know how the spirit of life passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God, who causes all things to happen." (Ecc 11:5)

    Acts of creation don't take place when babies are conceived. No, everybody's creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely reproductions of Adam via the blessing of fertility.

    Adam received life from God on the sixth day of creation. When God formed the woman, He didn't breathe the breath of life into her nostrils like He did Adam. God simply used Adam's already-existing life to energize Eve. And ever since then, parents have been passing their life onto their children. In other words: human life— like bird life, fish life, bug life, reptile life, and beast life —is a transferable kind of life; passing from one generation on to the next. It's not a miraculous process; no, it's a perfectly natural process; and it's a pretty amazing process too.

    According to ancient Jewish thought, Eve thought Cain to be a very special boy.

    T. And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said: I have acquired a man, the Angel of The Lord. (Targum Jonathan)

    Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head. But alas, Cain was just an ordinary kid.

    NOTE: The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't especially indicate a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and essentially means a dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who speaks for, and/or represents, another; i.e. an ambassador and/or someone selected by God for a special purpose. The New Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty much the same thing.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2020