Having A Go At Genesis

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,

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

Gen 2:8b . . in the east

"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood.
Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago;
while the world considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern
navigation, everything towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich
England around the world to Samoa is East longitude, and everything
towards sunset around the world to Samoa is West longitude.

So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but
if you were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a
matter of perspective.

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

The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw') and
means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very nice location
and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley or
Pleasant Acres.

Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed. And from
the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the
sight and good for food,

The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but
there's no reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended
home. And I think we can safely assume the garden was already viable and
productive when Man arrived. God didn't just throw him in the water to sink
or swim. He gave the man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam
wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a
place to settle down and call home.

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

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

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

A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is
gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet,
gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and
therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to
stop it.

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

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

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,

The verb "issues" is in grammatically present tense; indicating whoever
wrote Gen 2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet existed. The authorship of
Genesis has yet to be positively established. A verse like 2:10 strongly
suggests that the data used to compile Genesis, was progressively
accumulated in hand-me-down journals or in oral rote, generated by people
who lived prior to the final compiler's input.

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

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

The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.

The Hebrew word for "Havilah" is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which means
circular. It's not only a place-name but also a person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7,
Gen 10:29) which may indicate that the land of Havilah was named after an
antediluvian individual who settled in that area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The general picture in Genesis 2 is that of a major watercourse (the Eden
River) feeding an immense aqua system supplying water to a very large
geographic area comprising parts of Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nubia,
Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Palestine, Jordan, Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Iraq.

It would appear that the Eden River itself head-watered possibly in what the
world today knows as Russia; but it is impossible to tell exactly where it
came from because that region no longer generates a south flowing monster
river system such as the one from Eden described in Genesis 2.

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.

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

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

Mortality is a walking death, and it's slow, but very relentless. It's like Arnold
Swarzenegger's movie character; the Terminator-- it feels neither pain nor
pity, nor remorse nor fear; it cannot be reasoned with nor can it be
bargained with, and it absolutely will not stop-- ever --until you are gone.


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I will
make a fitting helper for him.

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

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

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

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

I suspect that Adam didn't really have it all that easy in his world, and that
Eve's companionship made his life a lot more tolerable and worth the living.
The helper that God made for Adam would be both his counterpart, and his
crutch. In other words: wives are really at their best when they strengthen
their men to go out that door and face the big, bad, mean world.

In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear right from the
beginning that human beings were not intended to live a celibate life. If male
human life was packaged in a box of software, one of its system
requirements would be Female Companion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
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

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

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

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

This section makes it appear that the woman was brought into existence
after the completion of the sixth day. But according to Gen 1:27, the male
and the female were both created at the very same time on the very same

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

A: She was in Adam's body.

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

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

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

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

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

In other words: finally somebody Adam could really 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. Married
men shackled to a maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in
a cold war.

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

So Adam saw in Eve his true counterpart-- a blood relative who was just as
human as himself; and one who could truly relate to him, be sensitive to his
feelings, and understand his thoughts; something no other creature ever yet
has been able to do.

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

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

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

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

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



Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet
they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt
complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and
narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had
absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any
because their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
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

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)

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

The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of God to
sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't hesitate to entice a
little nobody like Eve. But Eve was extremely strategic; she and Adam were
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.

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 humanity's creator 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 divine sovereign (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Ps 82:6).
Besides; does anybody really want to live in a micro-managed Big Brother
society? I don't think so. But that's the logic behind just about every product
liability lawsuit.

Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to cure
humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability lawsuits go after
suppliers who provide the means 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.


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
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
dishonesty existed. And actually, she didn't even know what honesty was
either because nobody had taught her anything about it yet.

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

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. 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 die,

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

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

The Serpent was somehow aware that Eve wouldn't drop dead to the floor
from eating the forbidden fruit. So that much of his statement was true.
However, what he didn't tell Eve was that the fruit would cause her to lose
immortality, i.e. she would become mortal, which is a walking death rather
than a sudden death.


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

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

The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue.
In time their eyes were opened and they became conscious of good and evil
(Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22) but as upcoming events will reveal, his prediction
was a half-truth; viz: their consciousness of good and evil was natural, i.e.
human rather than divine.

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

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived
that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made
themselves loincloths.

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

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the couple's new
perception of themselves is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's
biological father. But Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could
not, nor did he, pass it on to her biologically by means of procreation or by
means of his body parts that God used to put Eve together.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with their new state of mind; but now I seriously doubt it
because Eve was the first to eat it, and when she did, nothing happened.
She remained shameless and went about in the buff as usual. It wasn't till
Adam tasted the fruit that something altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty
sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it to them or the Serpent did
it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human
body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power of death the
moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how
quickly it worked on Adam and Eve. As soon as he tasted the fruit, they
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the power of death when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that death come into the world via a
man's actions just as righteousness would later be offered to the world via a
man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the
garden at the breezy time of day;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
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.


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
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)

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

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

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

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

Targums are important as evidence for a history of thought among the
Jewish communities in Israel and abroad during Christ's day.


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman,

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

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

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

The offspring predicted here is just as much Adam's as Eve's seeing as how
she was constructed with flesh and bone taken from Adam's body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:16c . .Your desire 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 and pre-marital

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

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

And then there's this:

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

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

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

Gen 3:16d 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." (1Cor 14:34)

"If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home;
for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (1Cor 14:35)

"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." (1Tim 2:11-14)

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:17a . .To Adam He said: Because you did as your wife said, and ate
of the tree about which I commanded you; "You shall not eat of it"

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

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

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

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

God somehow manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now no longer
produces as well as it did in the beginning. The abundant swarms of life that
God created in the beginning would, at that point, begin to thin out as the
competition for available natural food stuffs would begin to intensify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam was likely spared disease seeing as how all animals great and small
would remain on friendly terms with Man until the Flood subsided. (Gen 9:2)

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
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 organic human material taken from Adam's body;
ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life
traceable to Eve is traceable to Adam.

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 Eve and all 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
that. They just can't believe she's everybody's mother.

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)

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

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


Well-known member
May 28, 2018
Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But
that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". In other words:
humanity didn't come from the hand of God as an equal; i.e. though
humanity was given the status of divine beings; humans are imitations
rather than actual deities-- real gods are impervious to death; humans die
like flies. (Ps 82:6-7)

Seeing as how humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then we're safe to
conclude that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made itself an
autonomous deity setting its own standards of right and wrong.

Unfortunately humanity, as an autonomous deity, isn't God's associate,
rather, His competitor; i.e. a rival sheik so to speak.

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

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

Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed
discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and
Heb 5:13-14)

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.

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

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