Bible Study The First Book of Moses Called Genesis

[Webers_Home]

Not A Post

********

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 2:5 . . and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for Yhvh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

One has to be very careful when reading that section in order to avoid making the mistake of concluding that homo sapiens was created prior to vegetation; when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account that humans were the very last to be put on earth.

†. Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

The word "mist" is from 'ed (ade). It's a very rare word and appears only one more time in the whole Bible.

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

According to the translators; Job understood 'ed to mean water vapor; viz: fog. California's coastal redwood trees derive much of their moisture from fog.

†. Gen 2:7a . . And Yhvh God formed a man's body

The Bible's God didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, homo sapiens isn't God's progeny-- homo sapiens is God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.

†. Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground

In other words: God made man-- He didn't give birth to man any more than He gave birth to the rest of the creatures on earth.

The earth consists of all the basic metallic, non metallic, and gaseous chemical elements such as carbon, calcium, phosphorous, hydrogen, oxygen, iron, sodium, and stuff like that constituting everything that exists in nature: both the organic and the inorganic. More than a hundred elements are known to exist and many of them can be found in all living things; not just man.

†. Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life

The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire) burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4) to animate.

The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff. Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul, spirit, blast, and inspiration.

What we're looking at here isn't artificial respiration because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried. So, what is it that aroused the man's body? It was life; which is neither a substance nor an energy, and that's why nobody yet has been able to make it in a lab. Life isn't something that can be produced by means of a recipe; no: life is derived from a source of life-- sort of like filling a bucket with water from a well, or a fountain, or a river.

Some pretty amazing things can be produced by combining various elements listed on the periodic table; but life is not one of them. The breath of life then, can be defined as the mystery with power enough to make things sentient; for example:

†. Mtt 3:9 . .Think not to say within yourselves: We have Abraham to our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

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

The Hebrew words for "living soul" are chay nephesh which is the very same nomenclature of every living thing aboard Noah's ark at Gen 9:10. Although Man is a higher form of life than all the rest of the chay nephesh, he is, nevertheless, an animal-like being; and except for his apparently higher consciousness; humans are little more than brutes in their basic nature: they eat like brutes, sleep like brutes, react like brutes, reproduce like brutes, excrete like brutes; they're territorial like brutes, drink water like brutes, run and hide like brutes, squabble like brutes; and they die like brutes.

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

Note : some feel that the "breath of life" is limited to humans; but it's easily shown from those who missed a ride aboard Noah's ark that both man and beast share that aspect of their creation.

†. Gen 7:21-22 . . And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

The problem is: folks want something to account for man's propensity towards religion. But the breath of life makes no one religious; it just makes them alive instead of dead.

As we saw; the two Hebrew words composing "living soul" are chay and nepehesh; which are very common and very definitely not restricted to humans.

Nephesh, for example; is located in 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:30, 2:19, and 9:4.

Chay is located in 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:25, 1:28, 1:30, 2:9, 2:19, 2:20, and 3:1.

When all those references are compared, it's easy to see that a living soul is simply a sentient creature like a koala bear as opposed to an unresponsive object like a brick.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

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

The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan and means: a garden as fenced. So the garden wasn't just a nondescript parcel of acreage with apricots and turnips growing wild on it. The garden (which very likely was a full-blown farm complete with orchards) was meant to be tended.

†. 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.

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

Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in Africa but 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.

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

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

The leaves of the tree are stated to be beneficial.

†. Rev 22:2 . . On either side of the river grew the tree of life that produces fruit twelve times a year-- once each month --the leaves of the trees serve as medicine for the nations.

The leaves of the tree of life contain something that stops debilitation (Gen 3:22). Exactly how the ingredients of a leaf could be so rich in nourishment as to halt the aging process in the human body is unknown. A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet, gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.

†. 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 amoral. 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 stupid like eating from a tree known to be toxic to humans. I mean, how smart is it to take LSD after you've been adequately instructed that it will mess with your head and/or your DNA; maybe even permanently?

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

The verb "issues" is in the 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.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. 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.

Gold is worth money 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.

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.

†. 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.

In order for that warning to make a significant impression upon Adam, it would be necessary for him to first fully understand what it means to die.

According to the Bible, human beings are all subject to death through Adam.

†. Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men

So Adam is responsible for bringing human death into the world. But what about critter death? I seriously doubt he's responsible for that. The other creatures were mass produced in swarms and I think fish, bugs, birds, reptiles, and beasts died on a regular basis in Adam's world and that's how he knew what death was.

Some believe that Yhvh was testing Man with the forbidden tree. I believe he was simply warning His little creature about a particular danger in his environment. We sure don't want kids to play with matches, pick up rattlesnakes, eat deadly mushrooms, drink bleach, or get too close to the edge of a precipice. So when we tell them to stay away from things like that; it's for their own good.

The ban on the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, was tempered by a carte blanche to eat fruits from all the rest of the trees; including the tree of life. So it's not like God pigeonholed Adam and forced him to eat from the wrong tree in order to survive. Earlier, in Gen 1:29, God gave Adam permission to eat all manner of plant life. So he had lots of options. An abundance of other nutrition was available. Therefore, if Adam ate from the wrong tree, he had no excuse for it. And that is what really made eating from that tree so serious-- it was willful, and done in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
Parenthesis

But why on earth would God put a deadly tree into an otherwise perfect environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a tree serve that has the potential to kill? Why even create such a tree in the first place? Was that tree a bad tree? No, it was not a bad tree. When God finished creating, He looked over His work on the 6th day and pronounced it all not just good, but "very" good.

The tree of the knowledge of good and bad wasn't a bad tree per se; any more than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening, rattlesnakes, scorpions, avalanches, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles, tsunamis, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, and arsenic and hemlock are bad in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all fit into the natural web of life. When people willfully cross over boundaries, ignoring the dangers, and start messing around, then they get hurt and it's really no one's fault but their own. For example:

San Francisco was once destroyed by an earthquake related to the San Andreas fault; but where did they rebuild San Francisco? Right back in the same place.

Los Angeles is at risk of the same San Andreas, and are even now as I write this preparing for a major quake. Are there plans to evacuate Los Angeles and relocate the city? No. They plan to ride out whatever the San Andreas and/or any of the other faults throw at them and city planners and disaster control specialists have already calculated the body count because the Andreas is overdue for a massive slip and so is one known as the Puente Hills Blind Thrust System,. City officials know big quakes are coming but nobody is getting out of the way.

All around the island of Japan are ancient monoliths, some as much as 600 years old, with the inscription : Do not build your homes below this point. The monoliths testify to past tsunamis. People back then set up those monoliths to warn future generations; but do future generations listen? No; they don't. 25,000 Japanese are listed as dead and/or missing from the tsunami of 2011 because they settled in communities below those ancient water marks.

The below-sea-level city of New Orleans was flooded by hurricane Katrina in 2005. Did city planners wise up and relocate the city to higher ground? No; they rebuilt right back in the same place.

On the eastern edge of the Democratic Republic of the Congo rumbles two-mile high Mt. Nyirangongo; one of the most active volcanoes in the world. The city of Goma, consisting of something like one million people, will be pelted with falling rocks and lava splatter, and buried by molten rock and pyroclastic flows of superheated dust just as sudden as the city of Pompeii if that mountain should ever decide to get serious about its business. Past eruptions bear this out.

And as if the volcano itself isn't threat enough, 2,590 hectare Lake Kivu nearby conceals an enormous underwater concentration of carbon dioxide and methane which could be released by a major eruption, spreading a lethal cloud across Goma that would spare no one.

Are Gomites concerned? No. Thousands of homes-- shacks constructed of hand-hewn eucalyptus boards and sheet metal roofs --have been built right on top of the solidified lava of past eruptions. In other words; the Gomites are knowingly living at ground zero; right in Mt. Nyirangongo's known kill zone.

Adam was given fair warning what would happen if he ate from the tree. It was just as fair a warning as parents give their kids not to poke paper clips into wall sockets or lean over a dog too close with their face when they pet a strange one. Consequences for spurning a parent's rules in those cases can be very terrible.

†. Prv 22:3 . . A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

"a fitting helper" is from two Hebrew words. "Fitting" is from neged (neh'-ghed) which means: a front, i.e. part opposite; specifically a counterpart, or mate. The word for "helper" is from 'ezer (ay'-zer) which means: aid.

Note that aid isn't spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve wasn't meant to be Adam's servant, but rather, his assistance-- in other words; his aid as in first aid. Note that assistance is not spelled the same as assistant nor are the two words synonyms. An assistant does what they're told, while assistance is support.

You know what that suggests to me? It suggests that Adam didn't really have it all that easy in his world, and that Eve's companionship made his life a lot more tolerable and worth the living. The helper that God made for Adam would be both his counterpart, and his 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 homo sapiens were packaged in a box of software, one of his system requirements would be Companion. Woman's potential for companionship is the primary reason that God made her-- not for her sex appeal nor for her reproductive value; no, for companionship.

Before God introduced the man to a woman, He first gave the man an opportunity to seek appropriate companionship from among the creatures of the animal kingdom. That route was futile.

†. Gen 2:19-20a . . And the Lord God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name. And the man gave names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts;

I'm sure Adam loved animals; I 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 our nature to do that. (I named one White Shoulder because it had an epaulette of white hair on its right shoulder)

But as cute and cuddly as creatures are, they just don't have what it takes to be the kind of companion that a human being really needs.

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

That's telling me that people who seek companionship from a pet are out of kilter because pets are unbefitting-- they're a lower form of life than homo sapiens; and God didn't create them to be man's companion, no, He created them to be man's servants.

†. 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' 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"

Since Eve was manufactured from Adam's own already-existing human tissues, then she was just as much Adam was he was; only a different gender. So then, if a virgin women were to produce a child, then the child would be just as much Adam as its mother, Though the child would have no immediate biological father, it would have at the very least one biological father: Adam. This is really, really important.

Woman is a human being not formed directly from the Earth, but formed indirectly; from another human being. God transferred the human life thriving in Adam's body to his wife's body. They were truly one flesh in every sense of the word but gender. Her flesh was his flesh and her life was his life. The woman completed the creation of Man; so that Man is actually a composite unity-- a male part and a female part.

Why wasn't Eve given a chance to fit in with the animals before introducing her to Adam? Well, I think it's because men can make do with 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-- to live alone and unloved in the world --is not one of them.

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

Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim: Hot diggity dog! Now I can get laid! 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: finally somebody Adam could relate to; and the expression became a colloquialism (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 in quality.

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.

Pop Quiz : How many friends do people need to dispel feelings of isolation and loneliness? Answer: Just one-- if that one is a supportive spouse. They say dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs are beasts. A human being's best friend is a spouse that looks out for them.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. 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 homo sapiens (e.g. Lilith) it just simply means the opposite side of the same coin.

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

At first glance it appears that Adam was the speaker of Gen 2:24, but according to Christ, it was man's creator who spoke it rather than Adam.

†. Mtt 19:3-6 . . Haven't you read? he replied; that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man split apart.

Oddly, there is no specific Hebrew word for "wife". The word for wife in that verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah (ish-shaw'). What makes a woman somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite literally owned each other. New Testament marriage retains the Old Testament's concept of possession.

†. 1Cor 7:1-5 . . The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Adultery is very serious not only because it's immoral, but also because it's an act of theft. Spouses that cheat on their partners are no different than carjackers taking an SUV that doesn't belong to them and selling it to a chop shop.

An important point in Gen 2:24 is the clinging. There comes a time in every youth's life when it's time for him to grow up, sever the apron strings, leave home, 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.

Adam and Eve were the same species; so their joining was a joining of the same flesh rather than cross-breeding the flesh of two different critters like a centipede and a cassowary.

Bible marriage isn't a political arrangement like the marriages of feminism where couples retain their independence. In Bible marriage, the two individuals lose their independence and become, no longer two autonomous individuals; but one. People who regard their spouse as an associate rather than their own body, have got the wrong attitude about marriage.

In Bible marriage, opposite genders are fused together and the half each brought to the union forms one whole human being. They may appear on the surface to be two separate individuals but in marriage they aren't; no they're an organic unity-- one body, one person --and all other loyalties take second place; especially loyalty to parents. If married people are still putting their parents first, marginalizing loyalty to their spouses, then they have not really cut the apron strings yet, and they surely don't think very much of their spouse either.

If a boy and a girl are not prepared to shift their loyalties to an intended spouse, then their marriage would be an evil union. They dishonor their spouses; and they spurn their maker's wishes regarding the marriage relationship. Marriage isn't for people who are incapable of running their own life; and it is absolutely not for children who cannot put loyalty to their spouses ahead of their parents.

In the movie "Moonstruck", Loretta Casterini's fiancé comes over to the house and wishes to speak with her in private. Loretta responds by saying she needs her family around her. Well, guess what? A guy in that predicament needs to get out NOW, while he can; before it's too late, because he will always be marginalized in his own home by the meddling of his best girl's family.

†. Gen 2:25a . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife,

It's very difficult to believe that God fully intended for people to always live without clothing. So how come early Man didn't need protection for his skin? Nobody really knows for sure; maybe because human beings had fur, or that human skin was a whole lot tougher and thicker than now; and far more resistant to abrasion and sunlight.

Still; nudity seems so impractical. And I would imagine that Adam and his wife needed to bathe pretty often too. Without clothing to protect their skin from dust and grime, in no time at all they would be as funky as two pigs in a puddle.

†. Gen 2:25b . . yet they felt no shame.

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

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal nudity; and actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. They weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their appearance in the nude.

Adam and his wife didn't feel naughty about frontal nudity at first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any because their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

That was an interesting time in the first couple's development. They had neither intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Some expositors label this era in the human experience as the age of innocence; which implies not just an ignorance of ethics; but primarily a lack of self consciousness-- which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others. Had you spoken with the first couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at you like a man taken leave of his senses.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
There are people upset with creation's God for not stepping in and preventing the so-called original sin. But they need to remember that man holds the rank of a king on this earth and has the God-given authority to conduct his own affairs as a 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.

†. 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 the Lord, 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 Mtt 4:1-11 that the Lord 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 the Bible's God, understands the concept of worship, understands the Bible, and understands the advantages of manipulating human minds, and world power.

The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of God to sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't hesitate to entice a little nobody like Eve. But Eve was extremely strategic; she was the high ground in the battle for men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the mother of all subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root of humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human race; 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, uni-bombers, terrorists, and men like Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of criminals are psychopathic prisoners of dark minds clouded with unnatural inclinations. The Serpent, though surely an incredible genius; is nonetheless an evil genius; not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action comics.

Five elements of psychopathy are evident in the Serpent's behavior.

(1) Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

(2) Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

(3) Reckless disregard for the safety of others.

(4) Deceit and dissembling; viz: repeated lying and conning others for profit.

(5) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.

If those elements sound familiar it's because they're the all-too-typical management practices of corporations the likes of ENRON, Nike, Nestlé, Bechtel, Union Carbide, Shell Oil, and Monsanto. Wall Street is especially callous. I watched a trader interviewed in a documentary who said that his first reaction-- upon seeing the Twin Towers aflame in 2001 --wasn't concern for the families and friends of the 2,300 killed and missing; but rather he inwardly exclaimed: Oh m' God! What will that do to the price of gold? In that man's mind, a catastrophe isn't a tragedy, no, it's an opportunity. Future's traders are very attuned to things like that.

The garment industry in particular, stands out as the poster child of psychopathic management practices: a veritable jewel in the Serpent's crown.

What we see in human nature often mirrors the Serpent's own dark personality. But the origin of the Serpent's twisted mind is really puzzling. How did it get that way? Was it a birth defect? Did it bump its head? One thing is for sure though: the Serpent's activities are living proof that angels 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.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. 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 conversed with the Adams on other occasions before this incident; and possibly had become a close family friend. Before making its move to wreck their life, the Serpent more than likely spent some time in advance nurturing a rapport with the Adams so the woman would have no cause for alarm when it approached; and would. therefore not suspect its intentions.

Being an innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman would certainly never suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and truthful. Up to this point, Eve wasn't even aware that something called a lie existed. And actually, she didn't even know what honesty was either because nobody had taught her anything about it yet.

†. Gen 3:1c . . Did God really say: You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?

Catching the woman alone, away from her husband's oversight, the Serpent began subtly introducing a concept which neither she nor Adam had even imagined before: it is actually possible for a creature to question its maker. However; that is not a particularly good idea.

†. Isa 45:9 . . Shame on him who argues with his Maker, though naught but a potsherd of earth!

†. Dan 4:32 . . All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account. [God] does as He wishes with the host of heaven, and with the inhabitants of the earth. There is none to stay His hand or say to Him: What have You done?

Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning to Eve? Well, who says he didn't? To assume otherwise is cave to the logic of what's known as an argument from silence; which essentially attests that if something isn't clearly stated in the biblical record, then it's inferred from the silence that there was nothing to state. But Adam was a tougher nut to crack because he got his intel straight from the horse's mouth and knew the truth very clearly and without ambiguity. But the woman quite possibly was instructed second hand, in conversations with her husband; who was, in effect, her personal rabbi. So it would be fairly easy to convince Eve that maybe she didn't hear her husband correctly.

Of course it was ridiculous to suggest the humans were forbidden to eat of "any" tree. But the Serpent was slowly sneaking up on the woman with subtle suggestions. Probing for weak points, the Serpent tested her understanding of God's instructions by asking a question that she should have been able to answer with relative ease. In response; the woman bounced right back and quoted God like a pro (or so she thought).

†. Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.

oopsie! Where did God say Adam couldn't "touch" the fruit? He didn't. (cf. Gen 2:16-17)

The woman adulterated God's instructions by reading something into them that He didn't actually say. She fell prey to a very human weakness-- not only of adulterating God's testimony, but of a tendency to make the laws of God more cumbersome and more strict than they really are.

Adulteration changes the meanings of God's sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While often containing a kernel of truth, adulterations are nevertheless not pure truth, but amalgams of truth and human error that falsify God's teachings and direct people off in the wrong direction; leading them to believe, and to repeat, things that aren't true. Adulterations are also very useful for manipulating people to favor the Serpent's wishes rather than the Lord'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 interpretation of God's instructions, and found it in error, the Serpent was understandably encouraged to push on and attempt to introduce some additional bogus concepts. The woman's fall is typical. First she adulterated God's instructions. Then she listened to someone refute them. Next, she will accept the refuter's argument, and then she will break with God.

NOTE : something that believers have to be constantly on guard against is sophistry; which Webster's defines as subtly deceptive reasoning and/or argumentation. Quite a number of cults are built on sophistry; which of course they call "reasonable" and/or "sensible". But faith isn't built upon only what makes sense to it; but rather, built upon what's revealed to it. So be careful out there; most especially with door-to-door missionaries.

†. Gen 3:5a . . but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings

The Hebrew word for "divine beings" is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is the very same word for man's creator in Gen 1:1. If someone presented you with an opportunity to be a God; wouldn't you take it? I think so; especially if you didn't know any better.

The thing to note is that the Serpent's promise wasn't altogether untrue. In time they did become gods (Gen 3:22, Ps 82) but his promise was a half-truth. In other words; he withheld a very important aspect of god-ism; and that is there is only one true god (John 17:3) so that by default, Eve and her husband became false gods since in the Bible there is no intermediate layer of gods sandwiched between the true and the false.

There are belief systems (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) who practice a form of deism called Monolatrism (or Monolatry) which is defined as the belief in the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity. Unlike Henotheism, Monolatrism asserts that there is only one god worthy of worship, though other gods are believed to exist. In other words: Monolatrists believe in a layer of intermediate gods sandwiched between the true and the false; which is where the Watchtower Society's theologians have installed the Word of John 1:1. Here's their version of his existence.

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The Serpent insinuated that creation's God was withholding the tree, not because it was poisonous or anything like that; but to despotically keep the humans in check. 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.

The woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for the Serpent's intelligence. But her defeat wasn't inevitable. She could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to her guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again until the Serpent got disgusted and gave up. But no, she dropped God's instructions early on; and thus set the stage for the utter ruin of her own progeny.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 3:5b . . who know good from evil.

The serpent finally convinced Eve that the tree was not just a path to better judgment, as if there are many such paths; but rather "the" path.

The Serpent was correct about one thing though. Eve would know good from evil after eating from the tree alright; only he didn't tell her it would be an intuitive knowing rather than an enlightened knowing. In other words; man wasn't designed to be a god; but rather, the student of a god.

†. 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 deceased critters at the base of the tree.

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

Most fruits and vegetables are very appealing-- just look at bananas and pears and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and plums and mangoes and strawberries. 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 "wisdom" available from the tree was in the form of intuition; which Webster's defines as: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference. In other words: intuition is a kind of insight that knows about certain things without having to be either told or taught.

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

You can just see Eve's eyes brighten from the sugar rush as she realized the Serpent was right after all-- she didn't die. So the woman brought it home and convinced her man to try it too.

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

Did Eve first deftly dice the fruit and camouflage it in a tasty parfait so her husband wouldn't know what he was eating? No. Adam knew exactly what he was doing. He went into it with eyes wide open.

†. 1Tim 2:14 . . Adam was not the one deceived

Did Adam die the instant he ate the fruit as predicted in Gen 2:17? Yes, he most certainly did; though his heart didn't stop till quite a few decades later (Gen 5:5). What's with that? Easy. Tasting the tree resulted in the loss of Adam's immortality, and he began to age.

One morning years ago as I was looking in the mirror shaving getting ready for work, I noticed that my once-thick hair was thinning; and upon closer examination, I also noticed that my face was beginning to sag a bit and there was the slightest hint of bags under my eyes. And then it hit me like an icy wind that my youth was over and the aging process had kicked in. I had become a dead-man-walking; and I was just 32. (That was back in 1976. You should see my face and hair now)

Death then, includes one's gradual debilitation; viz: death on the hoof. Whereas in the beginning man's youth was perpetual; now he enjoys a relatively brief period of freshness before he begins to fall apart; and from then on his remaining time on this globe can be defined as the throes of a living death for which there is no known treatment except one: the tree of life; and it's no longer available.

A pretty good illustration of the fatal effects of the aging process is one I borrowed from the movie Terminator, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was said of a terminator that it can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop-- ever! --until you are deceased.

†. Gen 3:7a . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened

Eve ate the fruit first; but her eyes weren't opened until after the rootstock of the race tasted it. That incident introduced an important biblical absolute that regulates even the scope of the Lord's crucifixion. (cf. Rom 5:12-19)

Although Eve was tricked, she wasn't innocent.

†. 1Tim 2:14b . . the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

I have to wonder why the husband followed his wife's lead and did something he knew full well to be breaking God's commandment 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 disobedience. But when your wife is sitting right beside you happily munching away on something that you were led to believe was deadly poisonous, and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects; how is a man supposed to react to that?

I think Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on Eve for some time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he surely had to wonder if maybe God was wrong. (The Serpent was pretty smart. It somehow knew that Eve was immune to the fruit, and that nothing would happen to either of them until Adam sampled it.)

Here again is that all-important tenet: Faith doesn't believe only what makes sense to it; rather: it believes what's revealed to it. In other words: Adam was told by a competent source that the forbidden tree was fatal. Though he could see for himself that Eve was experiencing no ill side effects; he should have refused to eat until at the very least he found out why from somebody who knows what they're talking about.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 3:7b . . and they perceived that they were naked;

Shazaam! Their newly acquired moral compass kicked in with its intuitive sense of propriety. In other words: Adam and his wife found themselves slaves of humanistic values so powerful that even if Almighty God himself told them it was okay to remain in the nude; they would not have believed Him.

†. Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

I seriously doubt they had a needle and thread. The word for "sew" is taphar (taw-far') which just simply means to fabricate clothing. If taphar were used to strictly mean needle and thread; then it would appear that Job stitched fabric directly to his own skin. (Job 16:15)

But why not bosom coverings? And why not derrière coverings too? Why only loin coverings? Well it's not too hard to figure out is it? The moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, they acquired a sense of decency; but as appropriate as their sense of decency was, it didn't come from God; no, it came from something they ate.

Some say there were no agents in the fruit to cause the changes in human nature that occurred in the Adams. But I'm not so sure. According to an article in the Oct 8, 2011 issue of the Oregonian; new research reveals that some, if not all, the plants we eat actually change the behavior of human genes in ways never before imagined.

A new study led by Chen-Yu Zhang, of Nanjing University, found that fragments of plant genetic material survive digestion and wind up swimming in the bloodstreams of humans and cows. Those tiny strands of RNA that somehow make it through the toxic acids and enzymes in the gut come from rice and the plant family that includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower and cabbage. Zhang found that they can muffle or amplify human gene expression in various ways. The discovery could lead to ways of designing plants that act as medicine or even change our own genetic structure for the better (or the worse).

And it's well known what happens to kids when they move into adolescence. Hormonal chemicals kick in, and their childish innocence vanishes; right out the window. They lose interest in kid's toys and begin to take an interest in things more appropriate for their age; including a very noticeable interest in themselves, and in the opposite sex; and most especially in what others think about them. In other words: they become self-conscious; which Webster's defines as: uncomfortably aware of oneself as an object of the observation of others.

Those adolescent changes aren't miraculous changes-- they're totally natural, hormonally induced, organic changes. So if kids undergo a natural kind of change because of the chemicals generated by the glands in their own bodies, then there is good reason to believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil actually did contain something that caused Adam and his wife to morph and develop a humanistic sense of propriety; and that "sense" can't help but influence people's interpretation of Mtt 5:28. In other words they want male libido to be adulterous because their forbidden-fruit intuition compels them to "feel" it's adulterous.

FAQ : you're saying that the forbidden fruit gave the first couple their puberty?

God blessed with them with fertility prior to the incident. It would be very difficult to prove the blessing was dependant upon their eating something that was bad for them.

FAQ : and it gave them moral awareness too?

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with moral awareness. The only problem is: they got theirs from nature rather than from heaven; which, in my estimation, isn't much different than dropping LSD or smoking mushrooms in order to achieve a higher consciousness.

At any rate, the pending dialogue, between God and Man in the next few verses, implies that God himself had no hand in making those two people change. On the page of scripture, their altered human nature is directly related to the fruit and to nothing else. So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a spiritual explanation, I think it would be better to stick with the biological one and let it go at that.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

The breezy time of day is a bit difficult to figure out without really knowing the climate conditions under which Adam and his wife lived. The breezy time may have been a routine part of their day when the mist was gently blown around to irrigate the garden.

The Lord God may have conducted school for the Adams every day at just about that time; so His arrival was likely expected. It was an opportunity to share their experiences and ask questions about things in nature that they didn't fully understand. And maybe they even talked about life on other planets, and how to make hot cocoa and pop corn.

Can you imagine the incredible advantage of being in a classroom with the undisputed expert on everything? You would never need a second opinion, nor go away wondering if your speaker really knew what He was talking about.

†. Gen 3:8b . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among the trees of the garden.

Well, that's understandable. They usually met with God in the buff; but now, the Adams were no longer comfortable with frontal nudity and the Lord God would surely notice their unease.

†. Gen 3:9a . .Yhvh God called out to the man

Why did God call out to the male? Answer: the principle of primogeniture. In other words: the male was created first, and the female second; ergo: Adam held the rank of the firstborn and also the paterfamilias of his race; which included his wife who, in a manner of speaking, was his first child. Thus, the male was God's point of contact with the human family; and the one held most responsible for its welfare too.

FYI : the rank of firstborn is always, and without exception, a male position. No woman has ever held that rank in the Bible simply because women are the wrong gender; which explains why the Bible's God has permitted women neither in the Levitical priesthood nor in the Christian pulpit.

†. 1Tim 2:11-13 . . Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

†. Gen 3:9b . . 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!

But the important thing to note in this incident, is that God took the initiative to seek Man, not the other way around.

†. 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.

Now that's interesting. Adam seemed concerned about being chastised for nudity; which in his mind was now naughty where before it was completely innocent. Well, if so, it was because of the intuitive sense of propriety he recently obtained from the forbidden tree; which is a natural sense of propriety rather than a divine sense.

†. Gen 3:11a . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked?

In other words: who said frontal nudity is indecent? Well; nobody had said frontal nudity is indecent, nor even suggested that frontal nudity is indecent— they just "felt" it's indecent. In other words; it was their intuition telling them that frontal nudity is indecent. Where did they get that? Not from their creator; no, they got it from that tree.

†. Gen 3:11b . . Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?

Mr. Adam's guilt complex about sex and the human body was a dead giveaway that he had experimented with that tree. (chuckle) Adam was covering up more than just his pelvic region; but God sleuthed it out of him.

Something in the chemistry of that tree altered Adam's consciousness. His human intuition now "senses" that frontal nudity is indecent; whereas before it sensed no such thing.

That is an astounding revelation. It tells me that man's natural sense of right and wrong is maladjusted and can't be trusted to provide him with absolutes; which is precisely why there are nine justices on the US Supreme Court instead of one, because one justice alone can't be trusted. In point of fact, it is extremely rare for all nine justices to agree because they don't render absolutes; no, they render opinions; and the majority's opinion is not always right; no, it's just the one we have to live with until such a time as it's overturned by a future majority's opinion.

So why didn't Adam just meet with the Lord God in the buff that day and try to act as if nothing was amiss? Because he just couldn't do it. Their new conscience was fresh and strong and right off the tree. Nowadays, by the time most people are of age, they've managed to desensitize their conscience so it doesn't bother them as much. But the Adams hadn't learned how to do that in time for the Lord's next daily visit.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

Adam's defense actually insinuates that God set him up to take a fall. 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 idea of a suitable aid?

Adam's defense is very typical. I hear it all the time from atheists in the form of this question:

"If God created man with a weakness for temptation, then how can He rightly condemn man for only doing what comes natural? In other words: since God made us this way; then it's His own fault when we stray; not ours."

Some people would like nothing better than to sue God for product liability.

†. 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.

It's been said that our children are the very best of us, and the very worst of us. Well; there's Eve in a like-father-like-daughter scenario; viz: blaming others for the way we act.

The first couple early-on exhibited 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 Adam-reaction?

†. 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 recent 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.

†. Mtt 25:41 . .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

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

†. Rev 20:10 . . 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.

It is only too obvious that the Serpent crossed over a line somewhere in the past and now there is no going back. Man 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 human beings 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 planet. That's a terrible thought.

The third chapter began with a statement 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.

†. 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.

†. Isa 65:25 . .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.

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 in the Bible are never portrayed 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.

†. Isa 11:8-10 . . 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.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

The enmity was for Eve's own good. If she got all sappy and forgave the Serpent, and kissed and made up, it just might pull another stunt on her; as ruinous as the first. The Serpent was, after all, the father of all con men; and more cunning than any beast of the field.

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

The word for "offspring" is from zera' (zeh'-rah) and technically means: seed; but can also mean a product and/or a result, fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny. Zera' is one of those words that can be either singular or plural, depending upon the context. Other words like that are deer, sheep, Man, and head (as in head of livestock). Every kid in a family can be called the parents' zera' whether there's eight kids or a lone child.

†. Gen 3:15c . . He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel.

From that point onwards the Serpent has made it his mission in life to prevent Eve's seed from doing the very thing God predicted; eventuating in Herod's slaughter of Jewish toddlers and the Lord's murder on the cross.

Who are the Serpent's progeny? Liars and Murderers; for starters (John 8:44). Additional Serpentary seed are people who exist solely to satisfy their passions and desires (Eph 2:1-3). And people given to rivalry and strife (Jas 3:14-15). those kinds of seed are progeny from the aspect of being products of the Serpent's handiwork-- in other words, there's some truth to the old saw: The Devil made me do it.

Unfortunately, the Serpent no longer allows itself to be seen in the open like it did that time in the garden with Eve. So it can easily manipulate the minds of its progeny covertly, out of sight, and completely undetected. Since people can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, nor feel it; the Serpent's seed are powerless to tell when they're being victimized by one of their master's schemes.

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

For many women, the pregnancy 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 childbirth 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 have been no more painful than doing one's business in the ladies room-- and just as lacking in danger to mom and baby.

†. Gen 3:16c . .Yet your urge shall be for your husband,

The Hebrew of that passage is very 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.

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

That is probably one of the most hated verses in the whole Bible. Eve's daughters do not like to be subjugated to and/or dominated by men. It really goes against their fallen 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 gender issue: it was a rebellion against male rule.

Gen 3:16d isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's place in church too: all churches.

†. 1Cor 14:33-35 . . As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

†. 1Tim 2:11-15 . . Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

How long the Adams lived together sans the imposition of a gender hierarchy isn't stated; but evidently there was no need for it prior to the forbidden-tree incident. But the incident aptly demonstrates that manipulative women can quickly lead men to ruin in no time at all because it's all too easy for them to persuade men to behave themselves in ways contrary to their own better judgment; which reminds me of a really cute line from the movie: My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Toula Portokalos complains to her mother: Ma, dad is so stubborn. What he says goes. Ah, the man is the head of the house!

Toula's mom, Maria Portokalos, responds: Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck; and she can turn the head any way she wants.

That's humorous but it's not a laughing matter. Many a man has been led like sheep to the slaughter by women who got them to do things contrary to their own better judgment.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

*****************

Not A Post

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. 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"

God's biggest gripe was that Adam put a woman's wishes over and above His own; thus making women one of God's competitors for a man's loyalty.

But you know; Adam probably balanced things out and figured that, all things considered, it was better to disappoint God than to disappoint his wife because, after all, Adam had to live with Eve; he didn't have to live with God. So he put her first, and made her happy rather than make God happy. Lots of married guys can easily identify with Adam's predicament; and I'm sure the majority of us would have made the very same choice.

There is really nothing intrinsically wrong with the influence that women have over their men. After all, that's the way the guys were made from the get-go. It's not as if Adam became inclined to make his wife happy sometime later after he became a sinner. No, he was inclined to make his woman happy right out of the box. So it's okay if woman influence their men; but it's the way women use their influence that makes all the difference. Most guys love to please their best girl; and a wise one will take advantage of that love sensibly so that everything comes out all right, and no one gets hurt.

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

Not only would Man himself be effected by a curse upon the ground, but every living thing that depends upon the Earth for food 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 pay 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. 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 intensified.

†. 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: worrisome-ness. Webster's defines worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or inclined to worry or fret; viz: Man became anxious, insecure, and perhaps somewhat melancholy. 'Itstsabown is the very same word used in verse 16 to describe the physical and emotional discomfort women now have to endure during pregnancy.

†. 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: 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 Man needs something a little more substantial.

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

I don't think Man is supposed to graze on pasture like a buffalo or a deer. 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, and rice; et al.

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

Whereas the Adams before had a beautiful productive farm complete with orchards that required minimal maintenance, they became faced with stubborn soil that needs plowing and sowing, and weeding. Very few natural grains exist abundantly in nature. These days; if he wants them in any appreciable amount, Man has to farm.

Those of us who live in nine to five, leisure-intensive America really don't appreciate just how laborious and time consuming the work is to grow your own food. Early Man'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 ground. Most people make their livings indoors in professions and trades totally unrelated to food production.

†. 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 kill Adam in order for him to stop living? No; all He had to do was deny Adam access to the tree of life and let nature takes its course; in other words: it was only a matter of time before Adam simply passed away of old age.

But what happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did he return to dust too? No; and the reason is: the living, conscious, sentient portion of Adam's existence didn't come from the dust. According to Gen 2:7 it came from God. Life then, isn't indigenous to planet earth. No, life is invasive; viz: it was introduced.

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

The word for "mother" is from 'em (ame) which can mean a mother in an immediate family, or the matriarch of a blood line, or the mother (as the rootstock) of an entire nation.

The word for "Eve" is from Chavvah (khav-vaw') and means: life giver. Some people have a problem with Eve. They just can't believe she's the mother of the entire human race; which would include Jesus too. But Genesis says Adam named his wife Eve because she was the
life-giver of all the living, not just a portion of the living. According to the Bible, Man 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 that one male.

†. Acts 17:26-28 . . He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.

Were not every nation of men made from "one blood" then Acts 17:16-28 would have to be revised to read "made from many bloods".

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified, and the words kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the shoulder. Modern shirts aren't long enough to provide an adequate covering of Man's body. Theirs were probably more like a knee or calf-length dress. A shirt implies 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 weren't for the Lord's sake; but theirs. Frontal nudity isn't forbidden in the Bible, nor does God himself feel particularly offended by it. Exposure is forbidden during religious services (e.g. Ex 20:26 and Ex 28:42) but that's not really for God's sake but rather for the worshippers. After all, God created Man totally disrobed; and that's the way Man lived for an unspecified time in the garden until he became sensual and developed self-consciousness coupled with a guilt complex over sex and the human body.

The garments actually facilitated the people's association with God. They were unbearably uncomfortable around their creator in the 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-- and actually, one they would never have thought of all by themselves because nobody had ever killed an animal before and who would have guessed their skins could be used for clothing until God showed them how?

That day, homo sapiens learned something about the advantages of leather goods. Most leather 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. Human beings 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. Precisely what species of animal God killed in order to make Adam his first suit of leathers is unknown.

The point to note is that the clothing that creation's God made for the Adams didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the slightest bit of labor in its design and manufacture. God slaughtered the animals, treated their hides, and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave the clothing to them for free, out of kindness; and free of charge. I believe God went to all that trouble because He didn't want anything coming between himself and Adam. In other words, Adam's felt-shame over frontal nudity was a barrier between him and his creator so God showed him a really good way to overcome it: a way much superior to Adam's limited degree of human ingenuity.

At some point in the future, everyone will be required to stand before God and face an accounting. Apparently some will be just as disrobed as Adam was in the beginning.

†. Rev 3:18 . . I counsel you to buy from me white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed.

The white garments aren't for covering one's nakedness so much as their intent is to prevent the feelings of shame resulting from being disrobed; which is exactly what Adam's leathers were intended to do for him and Eve. If there is anything to learn from Adam's experience it's that even people who are usually comfortable nude-- e.g. exotic dancers, nude bathers, and porn actors --are not immune to feeling shame in the presence of God. In other words, though people may be comfortable naked in front of people; they won't be so comfortable naked in front of the Almighty. It's somehow different in a way that I don't know how to put in words but when those people stand before God in the buff, they will be anxiously looking about for something to hide behind just like Adam did.

†. Gen 3:22a . . And Yhvh God said: Now that the man has become as one of us, discerning good and evil,

Man didn't become one of the us, he became "as" one of the us; in other words: homo sapiens became a race of gods.

†. Ps 82:6a . . I said: You are gods,

When did God say you are gods? Right here in Gen 3:22 and that was really a turn of events. Previously God had pronounced man a son of creation's God (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27, Ps 82:6b). Man's new status as a god is problematic because there is only one true god (John 17:3, 1Cor 8:4-6). Therefore man is a false god; and subject to the condemnation of idolatry; viz: self reverence.

†. Gen 3:22a . . discerning good and evil,

Isn't that what gods do? Yes; gods are judgmental; viz: they develop their own ethics in accordance with their own personal concepts of what they think should be right and be wrong. Talk about a clash of the Titans! From that point on, God and man have been at odds with each other fighting over which of the gods is going to set the standards for everybody else: the god of heaven; or the gods of the earth? Well; gods are supposed to be eternal; but men die like flies.

†. Ps 82:6-7 . . I said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like all other princes

†. 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 tree of life didn't contain enough nutrients to give Adam eternal life. It couldn't even give him immortality. But the tree could have given Adam perpetual youth; but even then, only so long as he supplemented his diet with regular doses of it; for example: I have an under-active thyroid gland that if left untreated would eventuate in my untimely death. But so long as I continue to supplement my diet with a prescribed daily dose of a medication called levoxyl, I can expect to live to a normal old age.

However; I can't get by on just one dose of levoxyl, nor can I take a lifetime of doses all at once. Levoxyl has to be taken a little at a time on a daily basis. What I'm saying is: as long as Adam supplemented his diet with that tree on a regular basis; he wouldn't die of natural causes; thus he had the potential to remain forever twenty-one. But that was not to be since God had already decreed that man must die for eating from the forbidden tree.

†. Gen 3:23-24 . . So Yhvh God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken. 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.

The cherubim and the fiery sword didn't actually guard the tree-- they guarded the way to the tree. That's a curious situation and strongly suggests that there is but one route to the tree rather than a variety of routes.

The sword itself almost seems to be a sentient form of life, turning in every direction, threatening and warning all who dared approach. At night its eerie glow lit the sky, and in the daytime, passersby observed its eternal flame burning perpetually like the bush Moses saw in the desert. (shiver) What a creepy sight that must have been.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
From this point on in the book of Genesis, we will never again see another normal human being. Every one of them is going to be a sinful creature; and we are going to see just how wicked those sinful creatures can really be when they put their mind to it.

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

There is more to knowledge than just facts and data. 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 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. Throughout the Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common colloquialism for people sleeping together.

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.

†. Ps 139:13-16 . . 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.

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.

†. Ecc 11:5 . . 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.

No act of creation takes place when babies are conceived. The race'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. Gen 4:1 . . 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; he wasn't the Angel of The Lord.

Note : the Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't especially indicate a winged spirit. The word is a bit ambiguous and essentially means a dispatched deputy or a messenger; e.g. an angel, a prophet, a priest and/or a teacher. The New Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty much the same thing.

†. Gen 4:2a . . She then bore his brother Abel.

Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) and means: emptiness or futility. Figuratively: something transitory and unsatisfactory. Poor Eve; she's only had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. Cain was her very first pregnancy. It was a new, exciting adventure. Well, Abel's birth was no big deal. He was redundant; just another bun in the oven. The first one is the best. After that, they're all Same-O, Same-O.

Cain and Abel are very interesting and share a lot in common. In fact, they share so much in common that their individual personalities must be an enigma to behavioral scientists. Neither boy came from a large gene pool because there were no grandparents. Their genealogy stopped abruptly right in their own home with mom and dad and went back no farther. They both had the same parents, lived in the same home in the same neighborhood, grew up with the same customs, ate the same food, associated with the same people, breathed the same air, survived in the same environment, went to the same church, and worshipped the same God. Yet those boys were noticeably very different from each other. Abel was an inspired man (Luke 11:50-51) but Cain, though religious; was not. And he was violent too. (1John 3:11-12)

†. Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) or tse'own (tseh one') which mean: a flock; which Webster's defines as a group of birds or mammals assembled or herded together. So you can see there that "sheep" is an arbitrary choice of words. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy wrangling bovine rather than sheep; but I won't argue the point. Sheep will do.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

Note : the Hebrew language didn't exist in Adam's day; nor would it exist till some time after the Flood and the tower of Babel. Ancient names given in Hebrew aren't the native-tongue names of people prior to Babel; but rather: Hebrew equivalents of those names.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

The brothers' offerings were consistent with their professions: Abel was an animal husbandman, hence his offering was an animal, while Cain's profession was farming; hence his offering was produce.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary). Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts rather than obligations --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew the firstling. In a nutshell; minchahs are goods and/or services dedicated towards the Lord's use rather than one's own. Precisely what practical use the Lord made of the brothers' minchah offerings isn't disclosed.

Ancient rabbis believed the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

A "first fruit" offering shares your God-given prosperity with the one responsible for it. And you don't give your benefactor the least of your stuff; no, courtesy and common sense insists that you give Him the best of it.

Many years ago, back in the early 1960's when I was a young paratrooper in the US Army, my platoon went on a training mission in the Monongahela National Forest of West Virginia. A Green Beret tasked with our training shot and killed a deer and some of us were detailed with trekking to the location and hauling the carcass back to camp; where the Beret eventually proceeded to clean and cook it. Our recognition for packing the Beret's deer out for him? A small C-ration can of spoiled meat infested with little white grubs. That was NOT a first fruits kind of offering-- that was an insult.

You know, the providence of God doesn't get much press these days; especially in industrialized nations like the USA. God has a denigrating label for providence-challenged people.

†. Isa 1:2-3 . . Even the donkey and the ox know their owner and appreciate his care, but not my people Israel. No matter what I do for them, they still do not understand.

(chuckle) Donkeys and oxen aren't all that famous for their IQ's but in the Lord's opinion; the intelligence of those beasts excels the intelligence of providence-challenged people; and in reality, they're even dumber than Cain.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

†. Luke 11:50-51a . .Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

†. Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the offerings; in other words: they assume Cain was rejected because his offering was bloodless and they attempt to support their theory by citing the below:

†. Heb 11:4 . . It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a righteous man.

However, the focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the offerings because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is actually upon faith and righteousness; that is: the focus is upon the nature of the brother's conduct rather than upon the nature of their gifts. Abel was a righteous man; hence God accepted his gift; and would have accepted it even if Abel's gift had been nothing more than a double-shot Starbuck's latte. Stay with me as I develop this principle because it is very crucial to understanding how one's faith correlates with one's worship.

Whether produce or livestock was the proper offering is not the issue here. In making a determination regarding the gifts, God evaluated the men themselves first. The Lord respected Abel, therefore He respected Abel's gift too. But although God very likely had been satisfied with Cain in the past, this time there was something amiss.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't, smoke, drink, snort coke, gamble or chase women. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. Why?

Well, the reason is an elephant in the middle of the room. It was friction between him and his brother. Christ taught that it is incorrect to offer God a gift while the worshipper's relationship with their sibling is dysfunctional.

†. Mtt 5:23-24 . .Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

So then, what are Gen 4:4b-5a and Mtt 5:23-24 teaching? They're teaching that one's worship, no matter how correct, is unacceptable when their conduct is unbecoming. (cf. Isa 1:11-20, Hos 6:6, Pro 15:8-9, and Prv 21:27)

This principle of comes out very early in the Bible because it is so foundational to a proper association with creation's God.

†. 1John 1:5-6 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

Buen Camino
/