Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 202
Like Tree157Likes

Bible Discussion Forum

Ask (or answer) Bible questions here. Join or start a Bible discussion now!

Thread: This Way To Genesis

  1. #41
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 2:21-23a

    Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man;
    and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at
    that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from
    the man into a woman;

    The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the
    only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an
    English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places,
    it's translated "side"

    Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as was Adam. She
    was constructed indirectly; viz: from a human tissue sample amputated from
    Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently any
    and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.

    The woman completed the creation of Man; so that Man is actually a
    composite unity-- a male part and a female part.

    It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
    biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human
    life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

    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, 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, e.g. Gen 29:13-14)

    Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is
    precisely why God made women: to be their husband's buddy. Therefore
    wives who aren't their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can
    only be accepted as cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality.

    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.

    Deade likes this.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Huckleberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25th, 2013
    Rep Power

    Default Re: This Way To Genesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_B View Post
    ​How old do you think the earth is?
    Quote Originally Posted by WebersHome View Post
    At least 4.5 billion years.
    The Happy Heretic Hacks out more Heresy.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Nehemiah6's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 18th, 2017
    Rep Power

    Default Re: This Way To Genesis

    Quote Originally Posted by WebersHome View Post
    Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as was Adam. She
    was constructed indirectly; viz: from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently any and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.

    Why are you making stuff up as you go along? The Hebrew clearly states that God took one of Adam's ribs to create Eve. So you have chosen to contradict Scripture, and create an imaginary scenario.
    The woman completed the creation of Man; so that Man is actually a composite unity-- a male part and a female part.
    Here's another fanciful idea. The Bible does not teach anywhere, and certainly not in Genesis 2, that the man is part male and part female. Neither does it say that the woman completed the creation of man. While the woman was complementary to the man, that is an entirely different thing.

    Frankly I have not explored this thread, but these two imaginary ideas indicate that you are not really interpreting Scripture as it should be interpreted. According to the actual words given.

    Last edited by Nehemiah6; September 23rd, 2017 at 03:11 AM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 2:23b-25

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

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

    It's also important to note that the woman wasn't constructed from the dust
    of the earth. She was constructed from Adam, therefore women are just as
    much Adam as Adam; ergo: children born of women are just as much Adam
    as Adam: whether virgin-conceived or normally-conceived makes no
    difference-- they're all just as much Adam's progeny as Eve's.

    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 hook up with somebody.

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

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

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

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

    The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6 and Rom 7:1-3,
    this particular unification is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor
    6:15-16 isn't limited to marriage; it takes effect even when people sleep
    around; ergo: when a man sleeps with a woman, any woman, he's stuck
    with her for life, and she with him, whether they agree to it or not because
    that is what God has decreed.

    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. 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 creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

    That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither
    intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. 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.

    Deade likes this.

  5. #45
    Senior Member followjesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 1st, 2016
    Rep Power

    Default Re: This Way To Genesis

    Quote Originally Posted by WebersHome View Post
    Hello; and welcome to the very first book of the Bible.

    I'm attempting a systematic, home-spun journey thru Genesis; practically
    verse by verse from the creation of the cosmos to Joseph's burial in Egypt.

    As of today's date, I'm 73 years old; and an on-going student of the Bible
    since 1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school classes, radio
    Bible programs, and various authors of a number of Bible-related books.
    Forty-nine years of Bible under my belt hasn't made me an authority; but
    they've at least made me competent enough to summit Genesis.

    Barring emergencies, accidents, vacations, unforeseen circumstances,
    and/or insurmountable distractions, database errors, difficulties, computer
    crashes, black outs, brown outs, deaths in the family, Wall Street
    Armageddon, thread hijackers, excessive quarrelling and debating, the dog
    ate my homework, Executive Orders, visiting relatives, brute force, ISIS,
    Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Carrington events, gasoline prices, medical
    issues, and/or hard luck and the forces of nature; I'm making an effort to
    post something new every day including Sundays and holidays.

    Some really good stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of
    human life, Adam and Eve, the origin of marriage, the Devil, the first lie, the
    first transgression, the origin of human death, the origin of clothing, the first
    baby, Cain and Abel, the first murder, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and the
    origin of Yhvh's people.

    Big-name celebrities like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael,
    Rebecca, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are here too.

    Not here are Moses vs. Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea. That story is
    in Exodus; Samson and Delilah are in Judges, David and Goliath are in
    1Samuel; and Ruth and Esther are in books of the Bible named after them.

    Buen Camino

    Some really good stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of
    human life, Adam and Eve, the origin of marriage, the Devil, the first lie, the
    first transgression, the origin of human death, the origin of clothing, the first
    baby, Cain and Abel, the first murder, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and the
    origin of Yhvh's people. "

    and in those beginings we see the reason salvation is needed. God creates man and Gives Him dominion over all the earth, gives Him all that is in the earth to rule over. God Gives adam 1 commandment meant for His safe keeping meant to Keep man alive. Satan comes along wanting dominion and authority, Man has been given this, so His method is to infiltrate mans Mind if He can corrupt mans mind and heart, He can wield authority through the rightful Heir of the earth, mankind.

    we see by genesis 6 that His plan worked, Man who was made in Gods image and declared very good, is now so evil at Heart, that God the creator is greived and it repents Him that He has even made such a creature as man on the earth. every though and inclination is only evil all the time, and God decides to destroy all flesh on earth man and beast alike. saving a small remnant in noah and His family.

    the evil of man, is the will of satan, His will was planted in the garden making a double nature for man part good Like God, and part evil Like satan. the Knowledge of Good and evil is now part of mans understanding, Our mind and heart. wherever there is a sin, satans will is being done. and its fruit is death and destruction to man.

    this is why we need a savior to undo what satan did to man through deception, Jesus solves it with the truth. what He did through sin, Jesus undoes with His death, what He accomplished through evil, Jesus undoes through Gods Love. Mans nature was poisoned when they ate the fruit.......Mans nature is Healed through Jesus Christ and the promises of the Gospel.

  6. #46
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:1a

    Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of
    the field which the Lord God had made.

    Probably no other creature in the Bible provokes so much skepticism as the
    Serpent. It just smacks of mythology.

    But this particular serpent was no ordinary reptile. It was indeed a
    remarkable creature. Not only was it capable of language, and able to
    communicate on a very sophisticated level with human beings, but it had an
    exceptional IQ too. It grasped the significance of a supreme being, and
    totally understood the workings of human nature and the human mind. No
    mere animal is capable of that degree of insight, cognition, and3

    The final book in the New Testament confirms the Serpent's true identity,
    and it is none other than the dark spirit being well known to everyone as the
    Devil and Satan. (Rev 20:1-3).

    According to Christ, Mr. Serpent was in the world from the very beginning;
    and his stock in trade was murder and deception right from the get go.
    (John 8:44)

    Since Rev 20:1-3 has not yet come to pass, then the Serpent remains at
    large and very active in today's modern world. It is highly skilled at mental
    suggestions: secretly guiding mankind along a road to self destruction. It is
    the source of much of the world's political tensions, and certainly the
    impetus behind all large scale anti-Semitic agendas.

    I have never seen the Serpent myself; nor would I care to. But I know from
    Matt 4:1-11 that Christ saw it, and spoke with it. From that passage it's
    obvious that the Serpent is capable of human speech, understands human
    needs and weaknesses, believes in the existence of God, understands the
    concept of worship, a master of sophistry, understands the Bible, and
    understands the advantages of manipulating human minds, and world

    The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of God to
    sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't hesitate to entice a
    little nobody like Eve. But Eve was extremely strategic; she was the high
    ground in the battle for men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the
    mother of all subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root
    of humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human race; and it
    did. (Eph 2:1-3)

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

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

    Five common elements of psychopathy are evident in the Serpent's

    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' Gawd! 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. Futures traders are very attuned to things
    like that; and in their world: nice guys really do finish last.

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

    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 God see the future as if watching a video recording,
    but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the event in
    this chapter wasn't unexpected; and God could have, had He wished, easily
    prevented it.

    People get upset with creation's God for not stepping in and preventing the
    so-called fall of man. 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

    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.

    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.

    Deade likes this.

  7. #47
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:1b-4

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

    A characteristic of Eden's world was not only a lack of human death, but also
    a lack of fear. Man feared neither himself, nor the other creatures, nor the
    dark, nor the boogie man.

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

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

    Being an innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman would
    certainly never suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and
    truthful. Up to this point, 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

    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.

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

    "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?" (Dan 4:32)

    Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning to Eve?
    Well, 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; or worse; that he didn't know what he was talking about. I mean:
    isn't there more than one way to interpret the Bible? How do you know your
    way is the right way?

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

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

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

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

    Eve fell prey to a very human weakness-- not only of revising God, but of a
    tendency to make the laws of God more cumbersome and more strict than
    they really are.

    Revisions in the form of interpretations change the meanings of God's
    sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While often containing a
    kernel of truth, revisions are nevertheless not pure truth, rather, amalgams
    of truth and human error that falsify God's teachings and direct people off in
    the wrong direction; leading them to believe, and to repeat, things that
    aren't true.

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

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

    Here we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth; which
    Webster's defines as: a statement that is only partly true and that is
    intended to deceive people. In other words: a half-truth contains a kernel of
    truth but not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

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

    The woman's fall is typical. First she revised 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 Christ's believing followers have to be constantly on
    guard against is sophistry; which Webster's defines as subtly deceptive
    reasoning and/or argumentation (Eph 4:11-14). Cults typically sustain
    themselves by means of sophistry; which of course they call reasonable
    and/or sensible. But faith isn't built upon only what makes sense to it;
    rather, faith is built upon what's revealed to it.

    So be careful out there; most especially with door-to-door missionaries
    armed to the teeth with humanistic reasoning, semantic double-speak, and
    clever half truths.

    Deade likes this.

  8. #48
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:5a

    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 prediction wasn't altogether untrue.
    In time they did become gods (Gen 3:22, Ps 82) but his prediction 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 (2Chron 15:3, Jer 10:10, and 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.

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

    In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very
    same tree and that's why He didn't want to share the fruit with them;
    because then they might become savvy enough to go out on their own
    without depending so much upon their maker.

    In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for
    the Serpent's intelligence nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat
    wasn't inevitable. She could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply
    sticking to her guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again
    until the Serpent got disgusted and gave up. But no, she dropped God's
    instructions early on; and thus set the stage for the utter ruin of her own

    Deade likes this.

  9. #49
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:5b-6

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

    I think it safe to assume that good and evil in this instance wasn't limited to
    morality, rather, included the difference between smart and dumb, e.g. it's
    smart to set aside something for the future, while its dumb to spend every
    penny from payday to payday. It's also dumb to marry the first person you
    meet, while smart to make some comparisons.

    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 that the knowing
    would be humanistic rather than divine, i.e. hers would be a natural knowing
    rather than an enlightened knowing. In other words; man wasn't designed to
    be a god; but rather, the student of a god.

    "I know, O Yhvh, that a man's way is not in himself; nor is it in a man who
    walks to direct his steps." (Jer 10:23)

    Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for

    By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for
    human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good
    rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous
    if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the

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

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

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

    The Hebrew word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal') which essentially means
    circumspect, which Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances
    and possible consequences, i.e. to be smart and/or prudent.

    People with a high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life
    while those of us with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide
    what's best for us. So we end up seeking advice and guidance from experts
    because us dummies just aren't sharp enough to go it alone.

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

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

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

    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 drop dead. 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.

    "Adam was not the one deceived" (1Tim 2:14)

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

    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. I think most husbands would
    sympathize with Adam. I mean: here's your wife sitting right beside you
    happily munching away on something that you were led to believe was toxic,
    and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a
    reasonable man supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that

    Adam was told by a competent source that the forbidden tree was lethal.
    Though he could see for himself that Eve was experiencing no ill side effects;
    he should have refused to taste it until at the very least he consulted with
    somebody who knows what they're talking about: which in his case was the
    maker of the fruit.

    There's a useful lesson to be learned from it. In other words: Faith doesn't
    rely entirely upon empirical evidence, but instead; believes what's revealed
    to it rather than only what makes sense to it.

    Eve's apparent immunity to the fruit's toxins wasn't really reason enough to
    assume that God's instructions were unreliable. But even had they been
    unreliable; it was still wrong of Adam to brush them aside and do as he
    pleased. He was told not to eat the fruit. Whether it was actually toxic or
    harmless is unimportant. This episode is primarily about the quality of
    Adam's attitude towards authority rather than about the quality of the fruit.

    Deade likes this.

  10. #50
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:7

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

    According to 1Tim 2:14, Eve was in violation of Gen 2:16-17 when she
    tasted the fruit. But curiously, her eyes weren't opened right away. In other
    words: up till Adam tasted the fruit, its effects upon Eve's health were nil;
    and in point of fact, there's really no good reason to believe that Adam's
    eyes were opened the very instant he tasted the fruit; it's effect upon him
    may have been delayed too.

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

    Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and bad kicked in with an
    intuitive sense of propriety; which Webster's defines as the quality or state
    of being proper or suitable, i.e. conformity to what is socially acceptable in
    conduct or speech.

    In other words: Adam and his wife took it upon themselves to initiate a
    dress code due to finding themselves slaves to a humanistic conscience so
    powerful that even if Almighty God himself told them it was okay to remain
    disrobed; 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? 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 developed a guilt complex over sex and the
    human body that continues to this day; and I sincerely believe that complex
    is the very reason why so many people feel that the male libido is naughty
    and sinful. (Those same people rarely, if ever, condemn the female libido.)

    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 an intuitive sense of propriety; and that
    "sense" can't help but influence people's interpretation of Matt 5:28. In other
    words they want male libido to be naughty because their forbidden-fruit
    intuition compels them to "feel" it's naughty.

    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-- though I've yet to figure out the
    delay in Eve's case nor how Adam's tasting the fruit triggered its effect upon

    So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a complex spiritual
    explanation, I suggest it would be better to stick with the biological one and
    let it go at that.

    Deade likes this.

  11. #51
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:8-11

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

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

    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 intelligent 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 the speaker really knew what he was talking

    Gen 3:8b-9a . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among
    the trees of the garden. 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 firstborn and also the paterfamilias of his race; which
    included his wife who, in a manner of speaking, was his first child.

    NOTE: 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 the Christian

    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.

    Adam wasn't totally naked; just partially. But even that degree of undress
    lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong. I
    mean: how many of us would feel comfortable opening the door to guests
    while wearing nothing more than a pair of Haynes briefs? Well; prior to the
    forbidden fruit incident, everybody could've opened the door dressed like
    that without giving it a second thought; but now? It would definitely raise
    eyebrows; at least in America anyway.

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

    In other words: where'd you get the idea that undress is indecent? Well;
    nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's indecent--
    the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No; they just "felt"
    it's indecent. In other words; it was their intuition telling them that undress
    is indecent. Where did they get that? Not from their maker, that's for sure;
    no, they got it from that tree.

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

    Seeing as how God created the chemistry of that tree, then He knew in
    advance how it would alter the human consciousness if people were to ingest
    some of it.

    That incident easily verifies that humanity's current moral compass 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
    just 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 isn't eo ipso
    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.

    Deade likes this.

  12. #52
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:12-14b

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

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

    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 suitable aid?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Deade likes this.

  13. #53
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:14c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Deade likes this.

  14. #54
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:15-16

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

    I don't think the kind of enmity that God spoke of was the kind where
    friends fall out of harmony; but rather, He decreed a sort of poetic justice;
    viz: "You caused her downfall; and now I'm going to make it so that she
    causes yours."

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

    The word for "offspring" is from zera' (zeh'-rah) which is an ambiguous
    Hebrew word that technically means: seed; but can also mean a product
    and/or a result, and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and

    For example: the 53rd chapter of Isaiah predicts that Yhvh's servant would
    "see seed" in spite of the fact that Isaiah also predicted Yhvh's servant
    would die and leave behind no posterity. In that case; zera' can't possibly
    mean that Yhvh's servant would see biological seed; but rather, see the
    fruits of his labor; which within the context of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah
    consists of bearing the sins of many and thus shielding them from the wrath
    of God.

    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.

    The Hebrew word translated "he" isn't gender specific. It can mean either
    he, she, and/or it. So that Gen 3:15c could be-- and in some translations is
    -translated: "It will pound your head, and you will bite its heel". The decision
    to use "he" was an arbitrary choice; but seeing as how the Serpent, to my
    knowledge, is unable to reproduce itself with biological offspring, I'd
    recommend going with "it".

    Anyway; 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 Christ's execution.

    Who are the Serpent's seed? 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 seed from the aspect of being products of
    the Serpent's handiwork.

    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

    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 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 an equality
    issue: it was a rebellion against male domination.

    That rule isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's place in church
    too-- all churches.

    "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." (1Cor 14:33-35)

    "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." (1Tim 2:11-15)

    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 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 "My Big Fat Greek

    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.

    Deade likes this.

  15. #55
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:17-20

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

    A portion of God's gripe with Adam was that he put a creature's wishes over
    and above His own; thus making one of the things that God created a
    competitor for humanity's loyalty. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

    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 ground for its survival would be
    effected too; from lowly nematodes and earthworms right on up to the top
    of the food chain. The whole animal world, and all the seed-bearing plant life
    too, would suffer collateral damages for Adam's mistake.

    God somehow manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now no longer
    produces as well as it did in the beginning. 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 that Eve was doomed 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;

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

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

    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
    sizable amount, Man has to farm.

    Those of us who live in 9 to 5 leisure-intensive America really don't
    appreciate just how laborious and time consuming the work is to grow your
    own food. Early 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.

    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.

    It's often assumed that Adam was created immortal; but no so. Adam was
    created an air-breathing creature. Smother him and he'd die. Hold his head
    underwater and he'd die. But as long as Adam supplemented his diet with
    nutrients form the tree of life, he'd not die of natural causes.

    But what happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did he return
    to dust too? No; And that's because Adam wasn't entirely organic. His body
    came from the ground but his life came from God. According to Jonah 2:1-6,
    human beings survive the death of their bodies, and go to a place called
    sheol; which, in Jonah's day, was sited at the roots of the mountains; viz:
    the depths of the earth.

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

    Though Eve became the mother of all the living she isn't the source of life
    for all the living: Adam is.

    There's an important parallel to this in the New Testament where Christ is
    depicted as the source of eternal life for all the living in him; just as Adam is
    the source of human life for all the living in him. (Rom 5:12-21)

    There is one "living" that Eve did not produce and that's her own self. She
    was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body;
    ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life
    produced with Eve's body is Adam's human life.

    NOTE: Most everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that Gen 3:15's
    prediction refers to Christ; so we are on safe ground to believe that he
    obtained his human life from Adam too just the same as the rest of us.
    (Luke 3:23-38)

    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.

    Genesis says Adam named his wife Eve because she was the life giver of all
    the living, not just a portion of the living. Some people have a problem with
    Eve. They just can't believe she's everybody's mother (save for Adam) which
    would include Christ too.

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

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

    Deade likes this.

  16. #56
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:21-22

    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 were for their sake rather than the Lord's. Undress per se isn't
    forbidden in the Bible, nor does God himself feel particularly offended by it.
    Exposure is forbidden during religious services like in 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 tasted the fruit and found himself
    inhibited with a humanistic sense of propriety.

    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, a way 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, humans 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 man's maker crafted for the Adams
    didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the
    slightest bit of labor to its construction. God slaughtered the animals,
    treated 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 undress 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 experience.

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

    The mystery of the pronoun "us" was touched upon back at Gen 1:26.

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

    "I said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6a)

    Man's status as a god is problematic because there is only one true god
    (Deut 6:4, John 17:3, 1Cor 8:4-6). Therefore Man is a false god, i.e. a fraud.

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

    We could paraphrase that a bit to say "discerning the good and the not so
    good" and/or "discerning the best, the adequate, and the worst"

    In other words: people have the ability to make choices based upon
    information; but alas we too often make choices based upon our feelings
    instead of our intellect; i.e. based upon what we want rather than what's

    Well; gods are supposed to be eternal; but humans die like flies.

    "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" (Ps 82:6-7)

    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 Old Testament Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate
    infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely;
    which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits. In other words: it's not
    unusual for something said to be forever in the Old Testament to be subject
    to an end; for example the law of the Passover as per Ex 12:1-14. The
    Passover is to be observed by pious Jews until such a time as God says not
    to; and so far, He hasn't.

    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
    nutrients from 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 the man must die for
    eating the forbidden fruit.

    Deade likes this.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    April 23rd, 2017
    Rep Power

    Default Re: This Way To Genesis

    good stuff mon i like these infopackages u put up u see.......... fresh perspective
    Deade likes this.

  18. #58
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 3:23-24

    Gen 3:23-24 . . So the Lord 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.

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

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

    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. Brrrr. What a
    creepy sight that must have been.

    NOTE: Heaven is sometimes depicted as a mountain with many roads
    around the base heading towards the top. Well; Christianity accepts only one
    of those roads reaches the top; viz: the rest are dead-ends, loops, terraces,
    and cul-de-sacs, i.e. no outlets and nowhere to go except back down the

    Now picture hell as a huge pit, deep and wide, with many roads around the
    rim heading towards the bottom. Well; Christianity accepts that every one of
    those roads reaches the bottom; viz: there are no dead ends, no loops, no
    terraces, and no cul-de-sacs. In other words; people can get to hell any
    number of ways; but only one way back to the tree of life.

    "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To
    him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is
    in the paradise of God." (Rev 2:7)

    Deade likes this.

  19. #59
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 4:1

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

    There is more to knowledge than just information. Some kinds of knowledge
    can't be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by
    personal experience. Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's
    one thing for a young man to learn things about girls from looking at their
    pictures and reading about them in biology books and/or in magazines like
    Cosmopolitan, and Maxim; but it's quite another learning experience to
    actually cuddle with a girl and sleep with her skin to skin. 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.

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

    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

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

    No act of creation takes place when babies are conceived. No, man'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

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

    Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
    supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head.
    But alas, Cain was just an ordinary kid; 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 celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and
    essentially means a dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who
    speaks for another; e.g. a courier and/or an ambassador. The New
    Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty much the
    same thing.

    Last edited by WebersHome; October 6th, 2017 at 06:49 PM.
    Deade likes this.

  20. #60
    Senior Member WebersHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9th, 2014
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Post Re: This Way To Genesis

    Genesis 4:2

    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 man 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 men 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)

    Both men were living souls as per Gen 2:7, and both men existed by means
    of the breath of life as per the same verse. But souls are not the result of
    cookie-cutter manufacturing processes. Souls are individuals with a mind of
    their own.

    Individuality is one of the unsolved mysteries of life. How does the human
    brain's three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue produce self awareness
    and a sense of being unique? I don't know; it's very curious.

    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 and/or tending goats 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.

    Deade likes this.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Genesis 3:15
    By Billyd in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 4th, 2015, 09:52 AM
  2. Genesis 4:24-26
    By lihle in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 20th, 2015, 07:42 AM
  3. Genesis 1
    By leonardronaldo in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4th, 2015, 12:31 PM
  4. Genesis 1
    By leonardronaldo in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2015, 09:12 PM
  5. The Genesis Gap (Genesis 1:1-2) - Teaching by brother Gregory Miller
    By ChosenbyHim in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 10th, 2014, 10:53 AM