Bible Study Genesis Verse By Verse

[Beetow]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
● 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 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 shorten longevity and alter human consciousness? Why even create
such a tree in the first place?

REPLY: The 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 handiwork on the 6th day and rated 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: some forms of
light can even cause cancer.

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. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all
fit into the natural scheme of things.

Anyway: that passage is a favorite among critics because the man didn't drop dead
the very 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 his maker's warning to resonate in
the man'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: the man's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural
rather than allegorical, spiritual, and/or philosophical.

As far as can be known from scripture, mankind is the only specie that God created
in His own image, viz: a creature blessed with perpetual youth. 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 the man 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 the man seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence in
his everyday life.

So I think we can be reasonably confident that the man was up to speed on at least
the natural aspects of death and fully understood if he went ahead and tasted the
forbidden fruit that his body would lose its perpetual youth and end up drying in
the sun like roadkill; so to speak.

In other words; had the man not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've remained
in perfect health but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected
with mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to age; a condition easily
remedied by the tree of life but alas, the man was denied access to it.

As we all know: the aging process is a lingering, walking death rather than sudden
death, i.e. mortality is slow, but very relentless-- 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 our body is so broken down that it cannot
continue.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
● 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 handiwork 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 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 ones
that plagued NASA during the Apollo program.

"fitting helper" is from two Hebrew words. "Fitting" is from a word that basically
means a counterpart and/or a mating part, e.g. left and right shoes and socks. The
word for "helper" basically pertains to 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 reinforce him. In other words: woman's true
role is a supporting role rather than a leading role, ergo: strong domineering
women are out of sync with humanity's creator.

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, devotion, and loyalty.

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.

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.

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.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
● 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;

Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body. So then; any and all
children produced by Eve's body-- whether virgin conceived or naturally conceived,
would consist of Adam's body, i.e. her posterity would quite naturally be Adam's if
any part of her body was in any way at all involved in her children's conception.

* It's sometimes proposed Jesus was virgin-born to isolate him from Adam; but in
order for that scheme to work it would be necessary to isolate Jesus' mom from Eve
because if Jesus' mom was one of Eve's descendants, then baby Jesus would be
Eve's descendant, and thus Adam's too.

* It's also sometimes proposed Jesus' mom was his surrogate mother rather than
his natural mother. However; an angel informed Jesus' mom that she would
conceive in her womb. Well; according to the birds and bees, a woman's ovum has
to be involved in a baby's birth in order for the little tyke to be considered a
conception.

● 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, would rather not.

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.

Now the thing is: Eve was intended for a supportive role rather than a starring role
so it seems reasonable to me to believe she was instilled with a preference for
homemaking and a desire to be useful to a man-- her own man.

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

Had Eve been constructed from the soil as Adam was, then he would not be able to
claim her as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh because those components
of her existence would've been her own rather than his.

Also; the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) So I think it safe to assume
that the life in the flesh that Eve got from Adam was his life rather than a new kind
of life designed especially for women only.

Now then: 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 made to go it
together; as couples.

So Adam saw in Eve a very agreeable counterpart-- a blood relative who was just
as human as himself; and one who could truly relate to him; something no other
creature ever yet has been able to do.

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

Woman is translated from the Hebrew word 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of the Hebrew word for men. So 'ishshah doesn't indicate another
species of human life (e.g. Lilith) it just simply indicates the opposite side of the
same coin.
_