Genesis By The Slice

[WebersHome]

Gen 2:8-10a

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

The beginning 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.

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.

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

The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has
something in it that sustains life: indefinitely. Exactly how the chemistry of
any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human body from
getting old and falling apart is currently unknown. A very active field of
modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology-- the study of the
phenomena of the aging process. As yet, gerontologists have no significant
understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to what
treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.

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

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

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

From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the knowledge
of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man
was created intelligent; he was morally ignorant. 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 use Meth after you've been
adequately instructed that it will ruin your skin, permanently damage blood
vessels in your brain possibly causing a stroke, rot your gums and loosen
your teeth, and make you look old, ugly, and repulsive?

†. 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.

=================================

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 2:8-10a

.... 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 morally ignorant....

This article might be helpful: Did Adam Know Any Better?

I'm not sure if WH understands this, but Adam did understand the concept of right and wrong before partaking of the tree of knowledge. He was not morally ignorant in that he was not without the concept of morality. What he was missing was specific understandings of particular laws which were not yet innate to him (such as nakedness). But Adam understood the concept of right and wrong, and understood the sin he partook in, as the law was given to him directly from God. The article above goes into this in depth.

What we have to watch out for is the idea that Adam did not know what he was doing morally when he sinned. He most certainly did.

PS, it does appears this thread has become a ghost town, with one guy pontificating and plugging his ears to all challenges. Wish I understood why people do this.

 

[Born_Again]

Hey WH, Good to see ya over here!!

 

[WebersHome]

-
Born_Again, hello;

I know you from another forum but can't remember which.

=================================

 

[Born_Again]

I'm on Christianity Board......

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 2:10b-17

-
†. 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's name (e.g. Gen 10:7,
Gen 10:29) which may indicate that the land of Havilah was named after an
antediluvian individual who settled in that area.

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

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

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

Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is easier to
mine than others and some is a whole lot more plentiful. Placer gold for
example is usually in the form of dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and
washing. Hard rock gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock
crushing, and refinement in smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in
the form of nuggets. However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the
author's use of the word "good" might just be saying that its gold is
bountiful; as opposed to scarce. Gold can be found just about everywhere,
but concentrations of it exist in only a relatively few places.

Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various trees. The
author could have been referring to amber; a hard yellowish to brownish
translucent fossil resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making
ornamental objects like beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses
used to describe the color of manna in Num 11:7.

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

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

Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with both a region of
Arabia and the present-day land of Ethiopia. But the exact geographic site of
the Cush of antediluvian days is impossible to know. If it's the same, then
we can be pretty sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological
events in the distant past because it is now impossible for any river in
Ethiopia to connect in any way at all with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of
today's world.

†. Gen 2:14a . .The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that
flows east of Asshur.

According to Assyrian monuments, the Tigris was known to the post Flood
ancients as the Chiddekel, or the Hiddekel. Asshur was located in modern
day Iraq south of Mosul on the western bank of the Tigris river in between
the Great Zab and the Little Zab rivers.

†. Gen 2:14b . . And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today headwater not too far from Elazig
Turkey; flowing roughly (very roughly) parallel to each other from out of
Turkey, past Syria and Mesopotamia, and down into modern-day Iraq before
joining together and emptying into the Persian Gulf.

The general picture in Genesis 2 is that of a major watercourse (the Eden
River) feeding an immense aqua system supplying water to a very large
geographic area comprising parts of Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nubia,
Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Palestine, Jordan, Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Iraq. It would appear that the Eden River itself head
watered possibly in what the world today knows as Russia; but it is
impossible to tell exactly where it came from because that region no longer
generates a south flowing monster river system such as the one from Eden
described in Genesis 2.

The third and fourth rivers no longer connect to a larger river that elsewhere
branches off and flows to Ethiopia. It's pretty obvious from the author's
geographical descriptions that the world's current topography didn't exist
prior to the Flood. The antediluvian world was shaped quite different than
the one we live in now. The Tigris and Euphrates of today are but remnants
of an ancient irrigation system that at one time made the entire Middle East
a very beautiful and fertile region; but to look at it today; you'd never guess
it.

†. 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 other words: Adam's eventual demise was consequential; viz: according
to Rom 5:12 it was "death through sin".

It's been argued that "death" wouldn't have resonated in Adam's thinking
had the man not seen dead and/or dying flora and fauna in the garden on a
regular basis; and I think that argument is quite valid. In other words; I do
not believe Adam understood God to mean he would die spiritually; but
rather, somehow physically, because that was the kind of death with which
Adam would have been familiar.

Some believe that the creator 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 toxic mushrooms, drink bleach, get too close to the edge of
a precipice or play in the-fast moving waters of a wild river. 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.

Compare Num 15:27-31 where willful sin is described as a category of sin
for which there is neither atonement nor forgiveness under the terms and
conditions of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Deut 29:9-15.

=================================

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 2:10b-17

-The Hebrew word for "Havilah" is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which means
circular. It's not only a place-name but also a person's 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.......

Havilah appears very early in the Genesis record as did Eden. These were likely names give by God himself, or by Adam very early in earth's history.

Before the Flood in Genesis, we’re told about the land of Havilah—a land filled with gold and precious stones (Gen. 2:11). It was watered by one of the Edenic rivers—the Pishon. After the Flood, in the Table of Nations, we find out that Cush named one of his sons Havilah (Gen. 10:7)—no doubt in remembrance of this land. Cush’s father, Ham, lived in the antediluvian world nearly a century and no doubt was familiar with this land. In fact, he may have been there personally, giving Cush a first-hand account. Interestingly enough, Cush himself was named after another antediluvian land near Eden—the land of Cush, which was watered by the Gihon river (Gen. 2:13, 10:6). It would seem Ham chose this name for his firstborn for similar reasons. Shem also joined in this custom, naming one of his sons Ashur, after the land of Ashur which was said to be west of the Hiddeqel (Tigris) river (Gen. 2:14, 10:22). Later in Shem’s line we see that the name Havilah was used again—given to one of his descendants by his father Joktan (Gen. 10:29).

Can you see where this is going? Many of the early postdiluvians named their children after antediluvian locations. These children then matured and went on to populate the earth, and establish new cities and nations, some of which would bear their names.

We know that Noah’s earliest descendants bore the names of several great ancient civilizations. In fact Javan (Greece), Cush (Ethiopia) and Egypt all happen to be the names of Noah’s grandchildren.
Gen. 10:2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesheke and Tiras…….6 The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. (NIV-11)

Javan, the son of Japheth (and grandson of Noah), is the transliterated Hebrew word for Greece. Everywhere the word Greece is found in English Bibles, it is translated from this word (Is. 66:19, Ezek. 27:13, Dan. 8:21, Dan. 10:20, Dan. 11:2, Zech. 9:13). Cush, a grandson of Noah through Ham, is the Hebrew word for Ethiopia and you’ll find it translated as such in various Bible versions (2Kings 19:9, Esth. 1:1, Esth. 8:9, Job 28:19, Psa. 68:31, Psa. 87:4, Is. 18:1, Is. 20:3-5, Is. 43:3, Jer. 46:9, Ezek. 29:10, Nah. 3:9, Zeph. 3:10). Some versions favor one name over the other, while others use Cush and Ethiopia interchangeably. Mizriam is another grandson of Noah (through Ham), who bears the name of the most famous ancient civilization of all. Mitsrayim (sometimes transliterated Mizriam in English Bibles) is the Hebrew word for Egypt, and all occurrences of Egypt in English Bibles are from this Hebrew word. Some Bible versions translate this word Egypt for both the man (Noah’s grandson) and the nation (NIV-11 and ESV), while others use the transliteration Mizriam for Noah’s grandson (NJKV and NASB). But, in the Hebrew, they are identical and there should be little doubt that these ancient civilizations were named after these grandchildren of Noah. And given the long lifespans of the early postdiluvians, it would seem these may have actually had a hand in establishing them, themselves.4

Thus, a likely scenario of how these names reappeared after the Flood seems rather obvious. Before the Flood, certain lands were given names, such as Havilah, Cush and Ashur (Gen. 2:10-14). After the Flood, some of Noah’s early descendants named their children, Havilah, Cush and Ashur (Gen. 10:6-7, 29), after these lands. These children then matured, went out into the world and established cities which now bear their names (Havilah-Gen. 25:18, 1Sam. 15:7; Cush-Esth. 1:1, Job 28:19, Psa. 68:31, Is. 11:11, Jer. 46:9, Ezek. 29:10, Nah. 3:9, Zeph. 3:10; Ashur-Gen. 25:18, 2Kings 15:19, 29, 2Kings 17:23). Such a scenario makes perfect sense, and would also explain why these lands are no longer in proximity to one another and, in some cases, on separate continents.5

 

[WebersHome]

Parenthesis

-
But why on earth would God plant a tree unfit for human consumption in an
otherwise perfect environment? Was that really necessary? What real
purpose does a tree serve that has the potential to make people sick enough
to die? 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, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles,
tsunamis, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead, cadmium, and arsenic
and hemlock are bad in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes,
but they all fit into the natural scheme of things. 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 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.

The Cumberland River inflicted major flood damage throughout the city of
Nashville in 2010. Pete Fisher, manager of the Grand Ole Opry needed a
canoe to get across the parking lot and enter the theater. He reported that
had someone been sitting in the front row seats, they would have seven feet
of water over their heads. Did the owners move the Opry to higher ground?
Nope, the Opry is still right there on the banks of the Cumberland targeted
for the next flood event.

City planners have known for years that Manhattan is so few feet above
mean sea level that any sizable tsunami at all would flood both the city and
its subway system; but have the Sand Hogs stopped boring tunnels or have
construction workers stopped erecting buildings? No, they keep right on
boring and erecting; and in 2012 hurricane Sandy pushed a surge of sea
water inland and crippled the city's public transportation and much of its
electrical power.

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 too close with their face when they pet a
strange dog. Consequences for spurning a parent's instructions in those
cases can be very terrible.

"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the
simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." (Pro 22:3)

=================================

 

[nl]

Re: Parenthesis

-
But why on earth would God plant a tree unfit for human consumption in an
otherwise perfect environment? Was that really necessary? What real
purpose does a tree serve that has the potential to make people sick enough
to die? 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, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles,
tsunamis, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead, cadmium, and arsenic
and hemlock are bad in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes,
but they all fit into the natural scheme of things. 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 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.

The Cumberland River inflicted major flood damage throughout the city of
Nashville in 2010. Pete Fisher, manager of the Grand Ole Opry needed a
canoe to get across the parking lot and enter the theater. He reported that
had someone been sitting in the front row seats, they would have seven feet
of water over their heads. Did the owners move the Opry to higher ground?
Nope, the Opry is still right there on the banks of the Cumberland targeted
for the next flood event.

City planners have known for years that Manhattan is so few feet above
mean sea level that any sizable tsunami at all would flood both the city and
its subway system; but have the Sand Hogs stopped boring tunnels or have
construction workers stopped erecting buildings? No, they keep right on
boring and erecting; and in 2012 hurricane Sandy pushed a surge of sea
water inland and crippled the city's public transportation and much of its
electrical power.

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 too close with their face when they pet a
strange dog. Consequences for spurning a parent's instructions in those
cases can be very terrible.

"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the
simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." (Pro 22:3)

=================================

I commonly see a good number of forum threads related to knowledge of good and evil.

Current examples include:

• Is what I'm doing wrong as a christian??
  
• Tattoos, sin or not sin?
• Do you take on the sins of the Politicians you vote for?
• What is our obligation, as citizens, to America?

Forum threads related to supernatural life (as from the Tree of Life) are much less common as in:

How can I have life and have it more abundantly?

Just sayin........


“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." - Jesus in John 10:10

 

[WebersHome]

Re: Parenthesis

-

Just sayin........

Internet forums are great soap boxes. Everybody is at liberty to "just say"
and nobody is required to be an expert.

====================================

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 2:18-23a

-
†. 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 either Adam's servant, or his assistant; 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 supportive.

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 male
human life was packaged in a box of software, one of its 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 proved 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;

Adam gave names to all the beasts of the field, to all the fowls of the air,
and to all the livestock. He wasn't tasked with naming aquatic life; only terra
life.

The point is, even limiting Adam's task to just beasts, fowls, and livestock
would have been an overwhelming task if as many varieties existed in his
day as ours; which I honestly don't think did because, for one thing, prior to
the existence of humans, the earth underwent some mass extinction events.
It's believed by some that during the Permian period, 96 percent of all
marine species and more than 50 percent of all other species disappeared.
Later, at the end of the Cretaceous period, it's believed that another 1/3 of
plant and animal species, including the dinosaur guys, went extinct. So that
by the time we get to Adam, a pretty good percentage of the original flora
and fauna was gone; converted into fossil bones and fossil fuels.

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

My wife's kindergarten class visits a working dairy farm every year where all
the cows and the calves have number tags stapled in their ears. On the
books, those numbers are the bovines' names; but in a matter of minutes,
my wife's kinders give the little calves real names because it's just in human
nature to do that. (I named one White Shoulder because it had an epaulette
of 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 Man;
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' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the
only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an
English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places,
it's translated "side"

Since Eve was manufactured from Adam's own already-existing human
tissues, then she was just as much Adam as he was; only a different gender.
So then, if a virgin descendant of Eve 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. It is really, really important to understand that woman wasn't
a new species; but rather the same species as her husband, in point of fact.
she was not only the same species; but the very same man.

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, her bones were his
bones; 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. There are exceptions, of course; but as a rule, women do not care to
live alone and unloved in the world. It's curious, but when we think of
hermits; our minds typically think of them as male because female hermits
just seem so contrary to nature.

†. 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. They might
bring a man his slippers; but a dog lacks the capacity to nurse a man when
he's down with the flu, or sympathize with him when his job is outsourced to
cheap labor in India. No; a human being's best friend is a spouse that looks
out for them.

=================================

 

[Percepi]

Instead of plagiarizing, why don't you provide a link to the source material so you don't waste 20 posts (and constantly bumping your own thread)?

Genesis

Done. Can we end this thread and discuss the linked website now?

I also see no reason why this thread should exist if the OP isn't even going to address anyone's comments.

 

[Percepi]

Sorry, I said "Can we end this thread and discuss the linked website". What I meant to say is, "Can we stop copying and pasting material directly from another website and simply discuss the webpage instead since we all have access to it?"

If you want to have a discussion, please discuss specifically what you want to talk about in your own words. If you want to quote someone else's material, do so appropriately as a way of supporting your own point.

If you want to share someone else's material, just provide a link to said material instead of copying it word for word.

Again, here's a link to the thread being plagiarized: Genesis

It would be far more practical to make a new thread where you provide a link to the above website, then talk a little bit about the linked website and have a discussion.

 

[WebersHome]

-

Again, here's a link to the thread being plagiarized

Webster's defines plagiarism as: the act of using another person's words or
ideas without giving credit to that person

The key words in that definition are "another person's". Well then, seeing as
how I am the owner, the author, and the creator of the web page to which
you linked; I do not fit Webster's definition.

To easily verify my claim, all you have to do is navigate to the home page of
that web site and go down the bottom of the page where you'll see an email
address that looks like this:

Cliff and Joanne Weber
Contact: [email protected]

Send my wife and I an email and we'll respond with a reply back to you. If
we do not reply to your email; then you'll know I'm a fraud. And please; no
more bearing false witness; It's unbecoming. And I'll tell you something else:
there's nothing lower on internet forums than a fault-finder.

========================================

 

[Percepi]

-


Webster's defines plagiarism as: the act of using another person's words or
ideas without giving credit to that person

The key words in that definition are "another person's". Well then, seeing as
how I am the owner, the author, and the creator of the web page to which
you linked; I do not fit Webster's definition.

To easily verify my claim, all you have to do is navigate to the home page of
that web site and go down the bottom of the page where you'll see an email
address that looks like this:

Cliff and Joanne Weber
Contact: [email protected]

Send my wife and I an email and we'll respond with a reply back to you. If
we do not reply to your email; then you'll know I'm a fraud. And please; no
more bearing false witness; It's unbecoming. And I'll tell you something else:
there's nothing lower on internet forums than a fault-finder.

========================================

Alright, I'll take your word for it. I still find it unnecessary to copy and paste everything word for word when you can simply provide a link - but there's no rule against it to my knowledge.

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 2:23b-25

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

The Hebrew word for "woman" is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being as an individual or
as a male person. So 'ishshah doesn't indicate another species of human
life; it just simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin; viz: a
woman is just as much Man as Adam.

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

Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy spouses
because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking
about that kind of clinging. It seems to me more like reliance; and if a man
can't rely on his wife; who can he rely on? Reliance implies faithfulness: day
in, and day out. You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got
the wrong idea about what it means to be one flesh with somebody.

There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that
verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah (ish-shaw').
What makes an ishshah somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So
Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They
quite literally owned each other.

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, become his own man, and take up residence with his own woman.

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

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

The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6, this particular
unification is permanent. In point of fact, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 this
unity isn't limited to marriage: it takes effect even when people sleep
around.

†. 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.

Another practical consideration is hyperthermia. How did they stay warm at
night after the sun went down?

†. 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 either. Adam
was a product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance in the nude.

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

That was an interesting time in early Man'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 somebody criticized the
first couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their
critic like a man taken leave of his senses.

=================================

 

[Calminian]

Re: Parenthesis

-Internet forums are great soap boxes. ....nobody is required to be an expert.....

And might I add you've illustrated this beautifully.

 

[Calminian]

Alright, I'll take your word for it. I still find it unnecessary to copy and paste everything word for word when you can simply provide a link - but there's no rule against it to my knowledge.

Perhaps he trying to get feedback so he can make needed changes.

 

[Calminian]

-


Webster's defines plagiarism as: the act of using another person's words or
ideas without giving credit to that person

The key words in that definition are "another person's". Well then, seeing as
how I am the owner, the author, and the creator of the web page to which
you linked; I do not fit Webster's definition.

To easily verify my claim, all you have to do is navigate to the home page of
that web site and go down the bottom of the page where you'll see an email
address that looks like this:

Cliff and Joanne Weber
Contact: [email protected]

Send my wife and I an email and we'll respond with a reply back to you. If
we do not reply to your email; then you'll know I'm a fraud. And please; no
more bearing false witness; It's unbecoming. And I'll tell you something else:
there's nothing lower on internet forums than a fault-finder.

========================================

But why would you post your entire website on a forum that is meant for discussion? Don't you think that's a little arrogant? But if you must, I'll help you out. Here's the next section.

Genesis 03

§. 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 Matt 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 brutal. 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? I don't know; but one thing is for sure though: the Serpent's fondness for deceit is living proof that angels are not mindless robots created to obey the will of God without thought or question. No; they too have a mind of their own, and the freedom of choice between good and evil— the very same choices that Man is at liberty to exercise. Satan chose poorly, and his human counterparts oftentimes do too.
The event recorded in this third chapter is a bit of an enigma. The reason being that not only can the Bible's God see the future as if watching a video recording, but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the event in this chapter wasn't unexpected; and God could have, had He wished, easily prevented it.
In point of fact, Christ was already assigned the task of giving his life for the sins of the world before there even was a world (1Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8).For that reason, God's enemies often complain that humanity was set up to fall, and that it was actually God's wishes that the Serpent succeed in pulling humanity down just so Christ could die for it.
People are upset with creation's God for not stepping in and preventing the so-called original sin. But they need to remember that humanity holds the rank of a king on this earth and has the God-given authority to conduct its 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. But that's the logic behind just about every product liability lawsuit.
Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to cure humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability lawsuits go after suppliers who provide the means for humanity to destroy itself. Well; I'm sorry but God gave humanity the liberty to destroy itself; and actually, that's the way many of us prefer it because we want to make our own choices rather than have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics limit the choices available to us.
Recently, in the county where I live in Oregon, a drive-thru coffee hut opened for business where the coffee is brewed and served by female baristas clad with little more than pasties and scanty bikini bottoms. The girls can't be seen from a pubic thoroughfare. Patrons can only see the girls by driving up to the window. Well; local do-gooders went on the war path and began pressuring the city to close the coffee hut due to its being (they claimed) a nuisance, pornographic, unprofessional, unsafe, contrary to religious and family values, objectifies women, degrades the neighborhood, indecent, and a bad influence on children.
But city officials refused close it because the coffee-hut hotties weren't doing anything illegal— they weren't performing lewd acts nor were they soliciting prostitution. Also; they were indoors rather than out in public and they weren't violating any local health codes. As an editorial in the Oregonian so aptly pointed out: Those who prefer fully-dressed baristas have plenty of choices of places to buy their coffee. In other words: If you don't like your morning latte brewed and served by nearly-naked girls, then get your coffee elsewhere and leave the coffee hut to folk who don't mind some skin with their beverage.

Source

 

[Calminian]

...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.

But nachash is actually the hebrew word for snake, and is used many places in the O.T. Why would we assume it was not a snake? Keep in mind too, that just because Satan is referred to figuratively as a snake, that doesn't mean the snake was not a real snake.

You'll recall Peter was also referred to as Satan once. Does that mean Peter was really Satan? That would be silly. Satan is the great inciter. He temps and often controls people. The King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is a great example. When God addressed the King of Tyre, he addressed him as the being, Satan, who incited him. I believe this is exactly how we should view the snake in Genesis. He was definitely intelligent, and had many attributes that modern snakes don't. He was upright for one, and likely had legs. According the jewish tradition he had legs which were taken away at the curse while venom was added to him. Other animals in the Garden were intelligent as well, according to Jewish tradition, and also had language originally, until the curse when modifications were made.

The better way to view this is straightforward. Satan incited the snake originally, just as he later incited men. This is why he's called the serpent of old, in that this was his original instrument. More on the rest of this post later.