Genesis By The Slice

[Viligant_Warrior]

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

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

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

I would suggest that Ezekiel 28:12-18 proves that the serpent in the Garden was, in fact, Satan.

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 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, and communication.

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

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

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

I have never seen the Serpent myself; nor would I care to. But I know from
Matt 4:1-11 that the Lord saw it, and spoke with it. From that passage it's
obvious that the Serpent is capable of human speech, understands human
needs and weaknesses, believes in the existence of the Bible's God,
understands the concept of worship, 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 was the high
ground in the battle for men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the
mother of all subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root
of humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human race; and it
did. (Eph 2:1-3)

The Serpent seems possessed with a strange, criminal mentality: beyond
comprehension. But then, so are pedophiles, serial killers, uni-bombers, ISIS
extremists, and men like Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of
criminals are psychopathic prisoners of dark minds clouded with unnatural
inclinations. The Serpent, though surely a genius; is nonetheless an evil
genius; not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action comics.

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

(1) Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

(2) Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

(3) Reckless disregard for the safety of others.

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

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

If those elements sound familiar it's because they're the all-too-typical
management practices of corporations the likes of ENRON, Nike, Nestlé,
Bechtel, Union Carbide, Shell Oil, and Monsanto. Wall Street is especially
brutal. I watched a trader interviewed in a documentary who said that his
first reaction-- upon seeing the Twin Towers aflame in 2001 --wasn't
concern for the families and friends of the 2,300 killed and missing; but
rather he inwardly exclaimed: Oh m' 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. Future's traders are very attuned to things like that; and in their
world: nice guys really do finish last.

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

What we see in human nature often mirrors the Serpent's own dark
personality. But the origin of the Serpent's twisted mind is really puzzling.
How did it get that way? Was it a birth defect? Did it bump its head? I don't
know; but one thing is for sure though: the Serpent's fondness for deceit is
living proof that angels are not mindless robots created to obey the will of
God without thought or question. No; they too have a mind of their own, and
the freedom of choice between good and evil-- the very same choices that
Man is at liberty to exercise. Satan chose poorly, and his human
counterparts oftentimes do too.

The event recorded in this third chapter is a bit of an enigma. The reason
being that not only can the Bible's God see the future as if watching a video
recording, but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the
event in this chapter wasn't unexpected; and God could have, had He
wished, easily prevented it.

In point of fact, Christ was already assigned the task of giving his life for the
sins of the world before there even was a world (1Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8). For
that reason, God's enemies often complain that humanity was set up to fall,
and that it was actually God's wishes that the Serpent succeed in pulling
humanity down just so Christ could die for it.

People are upset with creation's God for not stepping in and preventing the
so-called original sin. But they need to remember that humanity holds the
rank of a king on this earth and has the God-given authority to conduct its
own affairs as a sovereign (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Ps 82:6). Besides;
does anybody really want to live in a micro-managed Big Brother society? I
don't think so. But that's the logic behind just about every product liability
lawsuit.

Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to cure
humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability lawsuits go after
suppliers who provide the means for humanity to destroy itself. Well; I'm
sorry but God gave humanity the liberty to destroy itself; and actually, that's
the way many of us prefer it because we want to make our own choices
rather than have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics limit the choices
available to us.

Recently, in the county where I live in Oregon, a drive-thru coffee hut
opened for business where the coffee is brewed and served by female
baristas clad with little more than pasties and scanty bikini bottoms. The
girls can't be seen from a pubic thoroughfare. Patrons can only see the girls
by driving up to the window. Well; local do-gooders went on the war path
and began pressuring the city to close the coffee hut due to its being (they
claimed) a nuisance, pornographic, unprofessional, unsafe, contrary to
religious and family values, objectifies women, degrades the neighborhood,
indecent, and a bad influence on children.

But city officials refused to close it because the coffee-hut hotties weren't doing
anything illegal-- they weren't performing lewd acts nor were they soliciting
prostitution. Also; they were indoors rather than out in public and they
weren't violating any local health codes. As an editorial in the Oregonian so
aptly pointed out: Those who prefer fully-dressed baristas have plenty of
choices of places to buy their coffee. In other words: If you don't like your
morning latte brewed and served by nearly-naked girls, then get your coffee
elsewhere and leave the coffee hut to folk who don't mind some skin with
their beverages.

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

 

[Calminian]

I would suggest that Ezekiel 28:12-18 proves that the serpent in the Garden was, in fact, Satan.

I think the serpent in the garden was Satan in the same sense that the King of Tyre and even Peter were Satan. You'll recall Christ saying to Peter, "get behind the Satan." At that point Peter was an instrument of Satan, so Christ addressed Peter as if he was Satan. Yet if the king of Tyre and Peter were real people then the snake must have been also.

 

[Calminian]

Since Webershome has elected to merely post his commentary form his website and not engage in any type of dialog, I'll just interact with his website directly (unless he finds the courage and humility). I think it serves as an example of the types of errors compromised views elicit, so it might be beneficial.

Looking ahead it appears the real errors of Webershome shine through in his commentaries on chapter 4. Rather than wait, let's skip ahead.

§. 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. ....

Notice the comment in bold. You'll notice though, that the text of Genesis never says no other children were yet born when Abel was born. Jewish tradition holds that Adam and Eve together had 56 total children (which is about right when you consider their lifespans were about 10 times of humans today). The order of these children are never mentioned. In Noah's toledoth genealogy, the text says that Adam had other sons and daughters beside seth, but doesn't mention birth order (Gen. 5:4). And we know for certain Seth was not the firstborn, so this really opens up possibilities.

I think it's very likely a girl or two may have been born between these two brothers, and it's even possible Eve may have bore a daughter prior to Cain. Notice Eve's reaction to Cain's birth.

“With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.”

This focus on Cain's gender leaves the door wide open to a daughter being born prior.

We'll pick this entire chapter commentary apart in great detail as I find the time.

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 3:1b-5a

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

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

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

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
garden?

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

"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.

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

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

Adulteration changes the meanings of God's sayings and inevitably leads
people into error. While often containing a kernel of truth, adulterations are
nevertheless not pure truth, but amalgams of truth and human error that
falsify God's teachings and direct people off in the wrong direction; leading
them to believe, and to repeat, things that aren't true. Adulterations are also
very useful for manipulating people to favor the Serpent's wishes rather than
the Lord's. Thus, without their knowing it, they fall in line and become the
Serpent's sheep instead of Christ's.

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

Having already tested the woman's interpretation of God's instructions, and
found it in error, the Serpent was understandably encouraged to push on
and attempt to introduce some additional bogus concepts. The woman's fall
is typical. First she adulterated God's instructions. Then she listened to
someone refute them. Next, she will accept the refuter's argument, and then
she will break with God.

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

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

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

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

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

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
posterity.

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

 

[EbalT5]

Re: Gen 1:1

-
†. Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The "beginning" is mentioned again at 1John 1:1 which I believe safe to
assume compliments John 1:1-2

†. Gen 1:1b . . created the heaven and earth--
=

Did it ever occur to you that there may be more than one BEGINNING?
Acts 11:15-16New American Standard Bible (NASB) [SUP]15 [/SUP]And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Colossians 1:18New American Standard Bible (NASB)
[SUP]18 [/SUP]He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

1 John 2:24New American Standard Bible (NASB)
[SUP]24 [/SUP]As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

Mark 1:1New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

We know that in the beginning God created.
But with Jesus began a new beginning.

Compare the next 2 verses.
2 John 1:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we lo ve one another.
John 13:34New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2 John 1:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
[SUP]34 [/SUP]A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

 

[Kerry]

There is only one beginning to offer a multiple beginnings is demonic.

 

[EbalT5]

There is only one beginning to offer a multiple beginnings is demonic.

Did you read my post?
Do you need help understanding it?

 

[WebersHome]

Re: Gen 1:1

-

Did it ever occur to you that there may be more than one BEGINNING?

If you sincerely believe that it is safe to assume that the beginnings
you listed compliment John 1:1-2; then by all means: have a nice day.

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

 

[Kerry]

Did you read my post?
Do you need help understanding it?

I read where you insinuated that there were more than one beginning.
from your post #66
Did it ever occur to you that there may be more than one BEGINNING?

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 3:5b-6

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

Why anybody in Eve's circumstances would have the slightest interest in
knowing good from evil defies reason. I mean, in her circumstances, in the
garden of Eden; who would even have a use for that kind of information?
But we all know that's about; don't we. Yes; human nature's curiosity is
never satisfied. The desire for information, even trivial information, is
common to all of us. I'd imagine that after observing Adam and his wife for a
while, the Serpent figured that out all by himself in no time at all.

The Serpent was correct about one thing though. Eve would know good from
evil after eating from the tree alright; only he didn't tell her it would be an
instinctive 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 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 dead critters at the base of the
tree.

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

Most fruits and vegetables are very appealing-- just look at bananas and
pears and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes
and 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 "wisdom" available from the tree was in the form of "instinct" which can
be defined as 1) a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned,
2) a natural predilection and/or proclivity that makes you want to act in a
particular way, and 3) something you know without learning it or thinking
about it.

Some folks, insulted by being thought of as no more sophisticated then a
bird or a beast, prefer to have their instincts labeled "intuition". Well; that's
okay by me. In my mind's eye there's no difference, so what the hay; let the
Wookie win one.

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.

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

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

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

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

"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 contrary to his maker's wishes and thus
put 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 insubordination.

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 man
supposed to argue with 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 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 was primarily about the quality of Adam's attitude towards
authority rather than about the quality of the fruit.

Did Adam die the instant he ate the fruit as predicted in Gen 2:17? No, he
didn't; but then he wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit.
God's exact words were "in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
(Gen 2:17)

Well; as we saw from Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit
ambiguous. It can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than
24 hours' viz; the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the
only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased
creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of
death.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "the
day ain't over yet"

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of gaiety, for
death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this seriously." (Ecc
7:2)

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 3:7

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

Eve ate the fruit first; but her eyes weren't opened until after Adam tasted it
because the language and grammar of Gen 2:16-17 indicates that the day of
death spoken of in post #71 wouldn't begin unless Adam tasted the fruit.

Curiously, whatever effects the fruit had upon Adam, it had upon his
posterity; which included Eve because she was manufactured from a human
tissue sample amputated from Adam's side. So then, had he refused to taste
the fruit, Eve would have been okay. This is indeed an enigma; and a very
mysterious enigma it is too-- even more mysterious than the mysteries of
dark matter and dark energy.

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

Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and evil kicked in with an
instinctive sense of propriety. In other words: Adam and his wife found
themselves slaves to a humanistic sense of right and wrong 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.

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 instinctive 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-tree
instinct 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. So instead of stretching our
imaginations to construct a profound spiritual explanation; I think it would
be better to stick with the biological one and let it go at that.

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 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 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 your speaker really knew what He was talking
about.

†. 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. Thus, the
male was God's point of contact with the human family; and the one held
most responsible for its welfare too.

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 in the Christian
pulpit. (1Tim 2:11-13)

†. 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
seemed inappropriate 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 Soma bra and Haynes undies? Well; prior
to the forbidden fruit incident, everybody could've opened the door dressed
like that without giving it a second thought; but now? forget it.

†. 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. 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 a man were to ingest
some of it.

That incident is an astounding revelation. It tells me that humanity's natural
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.

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 3:12-14

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

Adam's defense actually insinuates that God set him up to take a fall. Like:
"This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't imposed that female upon me.
Did I ask for a wife? NO! And what kind of person is this woman you gave
me anyway? She has managed to ruin my life in very short order. Is this
your idea of suitable aid?"

Some people would like nothing better than to haul God into court for
product liability.

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

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 had a girlfriend 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
25:41)

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
20:10)

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
planet. In point of fact, I was just reading in the January 15 edition of
Scientific American magazine that "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 with a statement that the Serpent was more
cunning than any of the beasts of the field, a creature that began with a
level of dignity way over and beyond the land animals; but fell to a position
of esteem far below them because of what it did to the Adams family. In
other words, the Serpent is now lower than the lowest thing on the face of
the earth.

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

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

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

It's probably best to interpret Gen 3:14c as a figure of speech 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 Gen 3:14.

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 in the Bible are never portrayed as beneficial to
mankind. They are always of the poisonous variety and a serious threat to
mankind'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)

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 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
posterity.

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 the Lord's murder on the cross.

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
1:28.

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

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

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

The Hebrew of that passage is very difficult; not even the great rabbis Rashi
and Ramban were in agreement how best to interpret it. But it appears to
me simply the very first prohibition against adultery.

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

That is probably one of the most hated verses in the whole Bible. Eve's
daughters do not like to be subjugated to and/or dominated by men. It
really goes against their 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 prior to 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 the movie "My Big Fat
Greek Wedding".

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

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

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

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 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 woman's wishes over
and above His own; thus making women one of God's competitors for a man's
loyalty.

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

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

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

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

Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him tending the
garden. But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The word for "toil" is
from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means: worrisome-ness. Webster's
defines worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or inclined to worry or
fret; viz: Man became anxious, insecure, and perhaps somewhat
melancholy. 'Itstsabown is the very same word used in verse 16 to describe
the physical and emotional discomfort women now have to endure during
pregnancy.

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

God finished the entire cosmos in six days; and no more creating took place
after that: so thorns and thistles already existed prior to the events of
chapter 3. But in the beginning, noxious plants doubtless weren't so
dominant. Today they're a nuisance because if ground is left fallow, it will
soon be covered with dock, mustard, dandelion, chaparral, wild flowers,
brambles, reed canary grass, and stuff like that. Those kinds of plants may
be okay for wildlife, but Man needs something a little more substantial.

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

I don't think Man is supposed to graze on pasture like 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.

†. 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. According
to Jonah 2:1-6, human life survives the death of its body, and the life goes
to a place called sheol; which Jonah 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.

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

The word for "Eve" is from Chavvah (khav-vaw') and means: life giver.
Some people have a problem with Eve. They just can't believe she's the
mother of the entire human race; which would include Jesus too. But
Genesis says Adam named his wife Eve because she was the life giver of all
the living, not just a portion of the living. According to the Bible, Man wasn't
created in groups nor in swarms like the other nephesh. The human race
was created in its entirety a singular, solo, male specimen. Every human
being since, including the first woman, came from that one 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)

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 3:21-24

-
†. 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. Frontal 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 became sensual and
developed self-consciousness coupled with a guilt complex over sex and the
human body.

The garments actually facilitated the people's association with God. They
were unbearably uncomfortable around their creator in the buff and that was
principally the reason they hid from the Lord when He came calling.
However, fig leaves aren't very durable; they're merely an expedient. God
showed them a much better way-- and actually, one they would never have
thought of all by themselves because nobody had ever killed an animal
before and who would have guessed their skins could be used for clothing
until God showed them how?

That day, 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. Sophists insist it
was a lamb but in reality, that's just speculation.

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 in its design and manufacture. God slaughtered the
animals, treated their hides, and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave
the clothing to them for free, out of kindness; and free of charge. I believe
God went to all that trouble because He didn't want anything coming
between himself and Adam. In other words, Adam's felt-shame over 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, discerning good and evil,

They 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)

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

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

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

†. 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.

In order make the warning of Gen 2:16-17 a reality; all that God had to do
was deny Adam access to the tree of life and let nature take its course.

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.

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

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 4:1

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

There is more to knowledge than just data. Some kinds of knowledge can't
be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by personal
experience. Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's one
thing for a young man to learn things about girls from looking at their
pictures and reading about them 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
139:13-16)

The writer of that Psalm believed that God saw him way before he was ever
conceived in his mother's womb. In fact; saw his substance in the recesses
of the earth before his mom even conceived: which attests that everyone
pre-exists in Adam because he alone was actually created directly from "the
recesses of the earth". Everyone else stems from Adam's organic tissues and
it's just a matter of time before the right combination of genes brings them
out.

"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
boy.

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; for example Gen
32:3, Gen 32:6, Num 20:14, Num 21:21, Num 22:5, Num 24:12, Josh 6:17,
et al.

The New Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty
much the same thing.

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

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I think the serpent in the garden was Satan in the same sense that the King of Tyre and even Peter were Satan.

No. Because the serpant was literally Satan. The King of Tyre isn't Satan, either literally or figuratively. He is most likely a minion of Satan, a higher-level demon. Jesus didn't call Peter Satan either. He spoke directly to Satan, who influenced Peter's reaction.

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 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 boy came from a large gene pool
because there were no grandparents. Their genealogy stopped abruptly right
in their own home with mom and dad and went back no farther. They both
had the same parents, lived in the same home in the same neighborhood,
grew up with the same customs, ate the same food, associated with the
same people, breathed the same air, survived in the same environment,
went to the same church, and worshipped the same God. Yet those boys
were noticeably very different from each other. Abel was an inspired man
(Luke 11:50-51) but Cain, though religious; was not. And he was violent
too. (1John 3:11-12)

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

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) or tse'own (tseh
one') which mean: a flock; which Webster's defines as a group of birds or
mammals assembled or herded together. So you can see there that "sheep"
is an arbitrary choice of words. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy
wrangling bovine 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.

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