Genesis Brief Overview
- Thread starter rbaitz
- Start date
-
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.
.
• Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God
The very first verse of the first chapter of Genesis doesn't waste words with
an argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather,
it starts off by candidly alleging that the existence of the cosmos is due to
intelligent design. I mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its
objects, and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to
convince the critics; then they're pretty much beyond reach.
The creation story wasn't written for the academic community anyway, nor
was it written for people who indulge in debating and perpetual bull sessions
that never get to the bottom of anything, nor for people who regard Genesis
as just another chapter of "Pride And Prejudice" to dissect in a Jane
Austen book club; rather, the creation story was written for the religious
community.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb 11:3)
Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and
religion complement each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't bother to answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer.
For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well
how the cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should
exist at all. Well; in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is
found in intelligent design; which is a religious explanation rather than
scientific. Religion's "why" is satisfactory for most folks. No doubt most
scientists would prefer something a bit more empirical.
Science has been chasing its tail, and pursuing a carrot on the end of a stick,
ever since the 200 inch Palomar telescope was conceived back in the first
half of the 20th century. Astronomer George Ellery Hale envisioned his
monster optic would see all the way to the far side of the universe. Instead it
only saw more universe. And then the Hubble, a.k.a. HST. It too has only
managed to see more universe. Lately the same hopes are in the James
Webb, a.k.a. JWST. But thus far, it too has only seen more universe: same-o,
same-o, same-o.
_
• Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God
The very first verse of the first chapter of Genesis doesn't waste words with
an argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather,
it starts off by candidly alleging that the existence of the cosmos is due to
intelligent design. I mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its
objects, and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to
convince the critics; then they're pretty much beyond reach.
The creation story wasn't written for the academic community anyway, nor
was it written for people who indulge in debating and perpetual bull sessions
that never get to the bottom of anything, nor for people who regard Genesis
as just another chapter of "Pride And Prejudice" to dissect in a Jane
Austen book club; rather, the creation story was written for the religious
community.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb 11:3)
Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and
religion complement each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't bother to answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer.
For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well
how the cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should
exist at all. Well; in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is
found in intelligent design; which is a religious explanation rather than
scientific. Religion's "why" is satisfactory for most folks. No doubt most
scientists would prefer something a bit more empirical.
Science has been chasing its tail, and pursuing a carrot on the end of a stick,
ever since the 200 inch Palomar telescope was conceived back in the first
half of the 20th century. Astronomer George Ellery Hale envisioned his
monster optic would see all the way to the far side of the universe. Instead it
only saw more universe. And then the Hubble, a.k.a. HST. It too has only
managed to see more universe. Lately the same hopes are in the James
Webb, a.k.a. JWST. But thus far, it too has only seen more universe: same-o,
same-o, same-o.
_
are you a disciple or follower of William Lane Craig?
he also speaks about the "MYTH" and is a big proponent of Evolution, which he tries to fit into the Creation Story of Genesis 1
I’m not an evolution supporter. Not do I follow Craig. Comparative studies between Israel and the ancient near East they were part of shows there was some similarities. It also shows myth wasn’t foreign to the ANE peoples. I don’t want to deny the existence of something that was part of the ANE people simply to defend a version of inerrancy.
Logical fallacy alert. It’s this or that. No. It’s interpretation that’s changed, not my high view of scripture that I’ve changed. I don’t understand how some Christians think their interpretation and view of inerrancy is scripture. It’s as if you and others conflate the two.
.
• Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
There are two primary kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a
creation day and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those
two kinds of days distinct and separate in our thinking because they are as
unalike as stones and gravel.
Natural days last only until the Sun goes down and night begins; whereas
creation days lasted for as long as the creator needed. In other words: the
evenings and mornings related to creation days aren't solar events. The
terms are merely index flags indicating the end of an unspecified period time
and the beginning of another.
And anyway; when you think about it; a strict chronology of evening and
morning doesn't define day, it defines overnight; viz: darkness. In order to
obtain a full 24-hour day, you'd have to define creation's first Day as a day
and a night rather than an evening and a morning.
Well; thus far Genesis defines Day as a time of light rather than a 24-hour
amalgam of light and dark; plus there was no Sun to cause physical
evenings and mornings till creation's fourth Day so we have to come at this
issue from another angle apart from physical properties.
According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth Day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other Day did God
create beasts but the sixth.
However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should
be taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an
unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were.
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six Days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six Days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the Days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible students end up
stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age
of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
BTW: The era theory is only a second opinion, so to speak. There are other
theories out there to consider; people aren't stuck with this one as if it's the
only possible explanation.
_
• Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
There are two primary kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a
creation day and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those
two kinds of days distinct and separate in our thinking because they are as
unalike as stones and gravel.
Natural days last only until the Sun goes down and night begins; whereas
creation days lasted for as long as the creator needed. In other words: the
evenings and mornings related to creation days aren't solar events. The
terms are merely index flags indicating the end of an unspecified period time
and the beginning of another.
And anyway; when you think about it; a strict chronology of evening and
morning doesn't define day, it defines overnight; viz: darkness. In order to
obtain a full 24-hour day, you'd have to define creation's first Day as a day
and a night rather than an evening and a morning.
Well; thus far Genesis defines Day as a time of light rather than a 24-hour
amalgam of light and dark; plus there was no Sun to cause physical
evenings and mornings till creation's fourth Day so we have to come at this
issue from another angle apart from physical properties.
According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth Day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other Day did God
create beasts but the sixth.
However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should
be taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an
unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were.
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six Days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six Days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the Days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible students end up
stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age
of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
BTW: The era theory is only a second opinion, so to speak. There are other
theories out there to consider; people aren't stuck with this one as if it's the
only possible explanation.
_
.
• Gen 1:14-18 . . And God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the
sky to give light on the earth.
. . . And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern
the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God
set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the
day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
At this point in biblical history, "stars" no doubt indicates all luminous
objects in the heavens seeing as how it would be a very long time before
humanity began categorizing some of the stars as planets.
I think it's important to emphasize that in the beginning God "set" the stars
in the sky just as he set the Sun and the Moon in the sky, i.e. celestial
objects didn't arrange themselves all by themselves sans any intelligent
supervision whatsoever; no, they were placed; and not only were they
placed, but also set in motion-- nothing in the entire cosmos is standing still,
though many things appear to be.
According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the Earth on the "day" that God
made them.
Well; the only stars whose shine is of any practical use as illumination are
those of the Milky Way; which is estimated 100,000 to 180,000 light years in
diameter. Obviously then; if left entirely up to nature, light from stars
nearest our location in the galaxy would begin dousing the earth with
illumination long before those at the far side.
For example, light from Alpha Centauri takes only about 4½ years to reach
Earth while light from Alpha Orionis (a.k.a. Betelgeuse) takes about 640.
There are quite a few stars whose illumination reaches Earth in less than 50
years. But whether 4½ years, 50 years, 640 years, or 180,000 years; the
time involved is insignificant if we but allow that the days of creation were
eras rather than 24-hour events.
But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for
one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty.
Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up
during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black.
Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial
Sistine Chapel.
"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)
The universe makes better sense that way than to try and find some other
meaning for it. Objects in space are simply a magnificent works of art— just
as intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt,
Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and/or da Vinci —testifying to the genius of
an engineer-artist without peer.
Sadly, a number of very intelligent people-- e.g. Carl Sagan and Neil
deGrasse Tyson --look to the sky for the wrong reasons. Why not just look
to the sky for inspiration instead of only exploration and discovery? What's
so bad about visiting the sky as a Guggenheim or a Louvre displaying your
maker's many-faceted talents?
"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)
One of the things "He has made" is mankind. By observing ourselves, we
can know quite a bit about our maker.
• Gen 1:27a . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him
Seeing as how Man is a physical being whereas God is a spirit being, then
we are safe to conclude that Man's image and likeness of God isn't as some
sort of doppelganger, rather, Man's characteristics exhibits some of God's,
e.g. He's sentient, self-aware, disciplined, responsible, intelligent, sociable,
verbal, imaginative, artistic, resourceful, reasonable, and conscionable. No
doubt He constructed Man in His image and likeness so that He and Man
could relate on a meaningful level.
_
• Gen 1:14-18 . . And God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the
sky to give light on the earth.
. . . And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern
the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God
set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the
day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
At this point in biblical history, "stars" no doubt indicates all luminous
objects in the heavens seeing as how it would be a very long time before
humanity began categorizing some of the stars as planets.
I think it's important to emphasize that in the beginning God "set" the stars
in the sky just as he set the Sun and the Moon in the sky, i.e. celestial
objects didn't arrange themselves all by themselves sans any intelligent
supervision whatsoever; no, they were placed; and not only were they
placed, but also set in motion-- nothing in the entire cosmos is standing still,
though many things appear to be.
According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the Earth on the "day" that God
made them.
Well; the only stars whose shine is of any practical use as illumination are
those of the Milky Way; which is estimated 100,000 to 180,000 light years in
diameter. Obviously then; if left entirely up to nature, light from stars
nearest our location in the galaxy would begin dousing the earth with
illumination long before those at the far side.
For example, light from Alpha Centauri takes only about 4½ years to reach
Earth while light from Alpha Orionis (a.k.a. Betelgeuse) takes about 640.
There are quite a few stars whose illumination reaches Earth in less than 50
years. But whether 4½ years, 50 years, 640 years, or 180,000 years; the
time involved is insignificant if we but allow that the days of creation were
eras rather than 24-hour events.
But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for
one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty.
Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up
during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black.
Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial
Sistine Chapel.
"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)
The universe makes better sense that way than to try and find some other
meaning for it. Objects in space are simply a magnificent works of art— just
as intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt,
Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and/or da Vinci —testifying to the genius of
an engineer-artist without peer.
Sadly, a number of very intelligent people-- e.g. Carl Sagan and Neil
deGrasse Tyson --look to the sky for the wrong reasons. Why not just look
to the sky for inspiration instead of only exploration and discovery? What's
so bad about visiting the sky as a Guggenheim or a Louvre displaying your
maker's many-faceted talents?
"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)
One of the things "He has made" is mankind. By observing ourselves, we
can know quite a bit about our maker.
• Gen 1:27a . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him
Seeing as how Man is a physical being whereas God is a spirit being, then
we are safe to conclude that Man's image and likeness of God isn't as some
sort of doppelganger, rather, Man's characteristics exhibits some of God's,
e.g. He's sentient, self-aware, disciplined, responsible, intelligent, sociable,
verbal, imaginative, artistic, resourceful, reasonable, and conscionable. No
doubt He constructed Man in His image and likeness so that He and Man
could relate on a meaningful level.
_
.
• Gen 2:8-9 . .The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the
man whom He had formed. And out of the ground he Lord God made every tree grow
that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of
the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• Gen 2:15-17 . .Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to
tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the
garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall
not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
• Gen 2:25 . . And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Although the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption, it wasn't toxic. We know
that for sure because the man's wife was the first to taste it and when she did, nothing
happened. She went right on totally naked in full frontal exposure without the slightest
shame until the man tasted it; and then they both became uncomfortable in the buff.
Now; the man didn't drop dead to the floor on the very day that he tasted the forbidden
fruit. In point of fact he continued to live 800 more years after the birth of his son Seth.
The first thing to point out is that in order for his maker's warning to resonate in the
man'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: the man's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather than
spiritual.
As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created in His
own image, viz: a creature blessed with perpetual youth. 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
the man by means of vegetation, 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 the
man seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence in his everyday life.
He saw grasses spout. He saw them grow to maturity, bloom with flowers, and produce
seeds. He watched as they withered, became dry and brittle, and then dissolve into
nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that the man was up to speed on at
least the natural aspects of death and fully understood that if he went ahead and tasted
the forbidden fruit that his body would lose its perpetual youth and end up no more
permanent than grass.
In other words; had the man not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've remained in
perfect health but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected with
mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to age; a condition easily remedied by
the tree of life.
He was supposed to die on the very day he tasted the forbidden fruit and he did; only in
a natural way-- subtly and not readily observed rather than instantly. The thing is:
mortality is a lingering, walking death rather than sudden death, i.e. mortality is slow, but
very relentless: like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie character "The Terminator"--
mortality 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 thoroughly
deceased.
_
• Gen 2:8-9 . .The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the
man whom He had formed. And out of the ground he Lord God made every tree grow
that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of
the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• Gen 2:15-17 . .Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to
tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the
garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall
not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
• Gen 2:25 . . And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Although the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption, it wasn't toxic. We know
that for sure because the man's wife was the first to taste it and when she did, nothing
happened. She went right on totally naked in full frontal exposure without the slightest
shame until the man tasted it; and then they both became uncomfortable in the buff.
Now; the man didn't drop dead to the floor on the very day that he tasted the forbidden
fruit. In point of fact he continued to live 800 more years after the birth of his son Seth.
The first thing to point out is that in order for his maker's warning to resonate in the
man'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: the man's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather than
spiritual.
As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created in His
own image, viz: a creature blessed with perpetual youth. 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
the man by means of vegetation, 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 the
man seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence in his everyday life.
He saw grasses spout. He saw them grow to maturity, bloom with flowers, and produce
seeds. He watched as they withered, became dry and brittle, and then dissolve into
nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that the man was up to speed on at
least the natural aspects of death and fully understood that if he went ahead and tasted
the forbidden fruit that his body would lose its perpetual youth and end up no more
permanent than grass.
In other words; had the man not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've remained in
perfect health but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected with
mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to age; a condition easily remedied by
the tree of life.
He was supposed to die on the very day he tasted the forbidden fruit and he did; only in
a natural way-- subtly and not readily observed rather than instantly. The thing is:
mortality is a lingering, walking death rather than sudden death, i.e. mortality is slow, but
very relentless: like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie character "The Terminator"--
mortality 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 thoroughly
deceased.
_
.
• Gen 3:6-11 . . So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she
took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
. . . And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the
cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of
the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
. . .Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him: Where are you? So
he said: I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was
naked; and I hid myself.
. . . And He said: Who told you that you were naked?
That was a really important milestone in the human experience. Of a sudden
their conscience lost its close association with God's influence and went off
on its own.
• Gen 3:22 . .Then the Lord God said: Behold, the man has become like one
of us, to know good and evil.
In other words; humans broke out of the corral and became feral, so to
speak, like wild mustangs, i.e. their own spiritual counselors; which is
contrary to our maker's preferences.
• Ps 32:8-9 . . I will guide you along the best pathway for your life. I will
advise you and watch over you. Do not be like a senseless horse or mule
that needs a bit and bridle to keep it under control.
_
• Gen 3:6-11 . . So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she
took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
. . . And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the
cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of
the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
. . .Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him: Where are you? So
he said: I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was
naked; and I hid myself.
. . . And He said: Who told you that you were naked?
That was a really important milestone in the human experience. Of a sudden
their conscience lost its close association with God's influence and went off
on its own.
• Gen 3:22 . .Then the Lord God said: Behold, the man has become like one
of us, to know good and evil.
In other words; humans broke out of the corral and became feral, so to
speak, like wild mustangs, i.e. their own spiritual counselors; which is
contrary to our maker's preferences.
• Ps 32:8-9 . . I will guide you along the best pathway for your life. I will
advise you and watch over you. Do not be like a senseless horse or mule
that needs a bit and bridle to keep it under control.
_
.
• Gen 3:14a . .Then the Lord God said to the serpent:
* The serpentary figure in this scene is actually the Devil in disguise. (Rev
12:9)
God interrogated the people and gave them 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 people against Him;
similar like when it later moved against Job.
Now the scary thing is: when Satan sought to turn Job against God; he was
granted permission to try. (Job 1:12 & Job 2:6, cf. Luke 22:31)
• Gen 3:14b . . Because you did this, more cursed shall you be than all
cattle and all the wild beasts:
The wording of the curse implies that no matter how hard God should ever
slam the cattle and the wild beast with misfortune; it would never be as
severe as that He pronounced on the Serpent. In other words, the Serpent
is now lower in God's estimation 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.
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.
• Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and her offspring.
The word "offspring" is translated from zera' (zeh'-rah) which is an
ambiguous Hebrew word that technically refers to posterity and/or progeny;
but not always the biological kind; e.g. 1Sam 2:12 & John 8:44.
• Gen 3:15b . . Hers will pound your head, and yours will bite his heel.
Gen 3:15 is considered by many as the earliest of all predictions related to
Christ's crucifixion as a propitiation for the sins of the world: the whole
world, no exceptions. (Isa 53:6 & 2Cor 5:14)
* Christ's crucifixion was the final nail in the Serpent's coffin. (John 12:31,
Heb 2:14, & Rev 20:10)
_
• Gen 3:14a . .Then the Lord God said to the serpent:
* The serpentary figure in this scene is actually the Devil in disguise. (Rev
12:9)
God interrogated the people and gave them 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 people against Him;
similar like when it later moved against Job.
Now the scary thing is: when Satan sought to turn Job against God; he was
granted permission to try. (Job 1:12 & Job 2:6, cf. Luke 22:31)
• Gen 3:14b . . Because you did this, more cursed shall you be than all
cattle and all the wild beasts:
The wording of the curse implies that no matter how hard God should ever
slam the cattle and the wild beast with misfortune; it would never be as
severe as that He pronounced on the Serpent. In other words, the Serpent
is now lower in God's estimation 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.
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.
• Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and her offspring.
The word "offspring" is translated from zera' (zeh'-rah) which is an
ambiguous Hebrew word that technically refers to posterity and/or progeny;
but not always the biological kind; e.g. 1Sam 2:12 & John 8:44.
• Gen 3:15b . . Hers will pound your head, and yours will bite his heel.
Gen 3:15 is considered by many as the earliest of all predictions related to
Christ's crucifixion as a propitiation for the sins of the world: the whole
world, no exceptions. (Isa 53:6 & 2Cor 5:14)
* Christ's crucifixion was the final nail in the Serpent's coffin. (John 12:31,
Heb 2:14, & Rev 20:10)
_
.
• Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of
us discerning good and evil,
FAQ: Was the first couple totally ignorant of good and evil prior to the
incident with the forbidden fruit?
REPLY: At first glance Genesis 3:22 makes it appear so, but the meaning of
that verse is very subtle and requires an explanation.
Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God; which means Adam
came into existence with a God-given conscience that was able to tell the
difference between good and evil from his maker's perspective. (The ability
to evaluate life from God's point of view is quite an advantage.)
Then along comes the Serpent and assures Eve she would be able to tell the
difference between good and evil with a conscience of her own making; viz:
he convinced Eve that the forbidden fruit would give her the power to
reinvent herself.
That's exactly what Gen 3:22 means where it says "the man has become as
one of us" in other words: the Adams made themselves a sovereign divinity
similar to, yet independent of, the sovereign divinity that made them.
• Gen 3:22b . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the
tree of life and eat, and live forever!
The 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.
People tend to take advantage of medicine in order to continue their bad
habits. For example; treatments for STDs enable immoral folk to continue
their swinging life style with little fear of permanent consequences. The
same can be said for folk with high cholesterol numbers. Statins make it
possible for them to keep on eating foods that are normally unsuitable for
them.
Had Adam been allowed unlimited access to the tree of life, he and his wife
would've no doubt routinely included fruit from the forbidden tree in their
diets because its detrimental effects on their health could've been easily
reversed seeing as according to Rev 22:1-2, the tree is useful for treating
whatever ails you.
• 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.
* The east side of the garden faced towards sunrise; which may, or may not,
be significant in some way; for example when Christ returns, he'll approach
from the east (Mal 4:2, Rev 22:16) and also make the tree of life available
again. (Rev 2:7, Rev 22:14)
I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its flaming
sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people could go and
see it for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it. But for some
reason, there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to that area. Well;
were that cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in our day, I
should think it would draw more people to it than even Mecca because it
would definitely be a wonder to behold, but I suspect that back then people
were terrified of it.
_
• Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of
us discerning good and evil,
FAQ: Was the first couple totally ignorant of good and evil prior to the
incident with the forbidden fruit?
REPLY: At first glance Genesis 3:22 makes it appear so, but the meaning of
that verse is very subtle and requires an explanation.
Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God; which means Adam
came into existence with a God-given conscience that was able to tell the
difference between good and evil from his maker's perspective. (The ability
to evaluate life from God's point of view is quite an advantage.)
Then along comes the Serpent and assures Eve she would be able to tell the
difference between good and evil with a conscience of her own making; viz:
he convinced Eve that the forbidden fruit would give her the power to
reinvent herself.
That's exactly what Gen 3:22 means where it says "the man has become as
one of us" in other words: the Adams made themselves a sovereign divinity
similar to, yet independent of, the sovereign divinity that made them.
• Gen 3:22b . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the
tree of life and eat, and live forever!
The 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.
People tend to take advantage of medicine in order to continue their bad
habits. For example; treatments for STDs enable immoral folk to continue
their swinging life style with little fear of permanent consequences. The
same can be said for folk with high cholesterol numbers. Statins make it
possible for them to keep on eating foods that are normally unsuitable for
them.
Had Adam been allowed unlimited access to the tree of life, he and his wife
would've no doubt routinely included fruit from the forbidden tree in their
diets because its detrimental effects on their health could've been easily
reversed seeing as according to Rev 22:1-2, the tree is useful for treating
whatever ails you.
• 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.
* The east side of the garden faced towards sunrise; which may, or may not,
be significant in some way; for example when Christ returns, he'll approach
from the east (Mal 4:2, Rev 22:16) and also make the tree of life available
again. (Rev 2:7, Rev 22:14)
I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its flaming
sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people could go and
see it for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it. But for some
reason, there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to that area. Well;
were that cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in our day, I
should think it would draw more people to it than even Mecca because it
would definitely be a wonder to behold, but I suspect that back then people
were terrified of it.
_
amen it also teaches us about ourselves our intended purpose of life and our failure's to heed the lords word and the resulting consequence
they are also written formoir learning and admonishment
“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
1 Corinthians 10:1-11
while the ot wasn’t originally given to gentiles , it’s intent was the admonishment of the church who would be called later
even the creation story is so we can understand the principle and relationship between faith and Gods word
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
Hebrews 11:1, 3 KJV
it also hearkens us to the witness of Christ and the gospel
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Genesis 1:1, 3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”
John 1:1-5, 9-10 KJV
.
• Gen 2:19-20 . . 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; 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
servants.
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.
• Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and,
while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.
And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a
woman;
The Hebrew word translated "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
so that the flesh was living flesh instead of dead.
The most important thing to note in that passage is that the woman wasn't
created directly from the soil as Adam was, viz: she wasn't a discreet
creation, i.e. women aren't their own unique specie. It's sometimes said that
women are from Venus and men are from Mars, but in the Bible, both are
from Mars; so to speak.
Being as the woman was made from Adam's body, then any and all progeny
produced by her body, whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived,
would consist of Adam's body too, i.e. they would be his progeny just as
much as hers if any part of her body's reproductive chemistry was in any
way at all involved in the conception.
The method by which the woman was constructed is very important to
Christ's virgin conception because according to Gen 3:20 and Acts 17:26, all
women are Adam's progeny. So then; If any part of his mother Mary's
reproductive chemistry was used in any way to produce Jesus' body, then
Jesus' body would be biologically descended from the first woman's body,
and consequently Adam's: if so, then we may rest assured that the
prediction below was quite literal.
• Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and her offspring. Hers will pound your head, and yours will
bite his heel.
The woman's offspring are children, whereas the Serpent's offspring are
those of her children under his control. (e.g. e.g. 1Sam 2:12, John 8:44,
John 13:21-27)
_
• Gen 2:19-20 . . 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; 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
servants.
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.
• Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and,
while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.
And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a
woman;
The Hebrew word translated "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
so that the flesh was living flesh instead of dead.
The most important thing to note in that passage is that the woman wasn't
created directly from the soil as Adam was, viz: she wasn't a discreet
creation, i.e. women aren't their own unique specie. It's sometimes said that
women are from Venus and men are from Mars, but in the Bible, both are
from Mars; so to speak.
Being as the woman was made from Adam's body, then any and all progeny
produced by her body, whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived,
would consist of Adam's body too, i.e. they would be his progeny just as
much as hers if any part of her body's reproductive chemistry was in any
way at all involved in the conception.
The method by which the woman was constructed is very important to
Christ's virgin conception because according to Gen 3:20 and Acts 17:26, all
women are Adam's progeny. So then; If any part of his mother Mary's
reproductive chemistry was used in any way to produce Jesus' body, then
Jesus' body would be biologically descended from the first woman's body,
and consequently Adam's: if so, then we may rest assured that the
prediction below was quite literal.
• Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and her offspring. Hers will pound your head, and yours will
bite his heel.
The woman's offspring are children, whereas the Serpent's offspring are
those of her children under his control. (e.g. e.g. 1Sam 2:12, John 8:44,
John 13:21-27)
_
.
• 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. We could probably add melancholy to that
list.
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
1:28.
• 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
fruit.
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 physical and emotional unpleasantries associated with
bearing children came about via the hand of God and it's apparently due to
1) listening to the Serpent, and 2) leading her husband to disobey God.
There's more.
• Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband,
The Hebrew of that passage is apparently somewhat difficult; not even the
great rabbis Rashi and Ramban were in agreement how best to interpret it.
But it appears to me simply a requirement that women reserve their
passions, and their allure, for the guy they marry.
* Extramarital allure is a serious problem in 2022 America. It's been quite
few decades since red-blooded men could go to a California beach without their
minds being dragged down to the depths of Hell. Allure has gotten so out of
control that even girls as young as middle school are dressing themselves
like tramps.
This "desire" spoken of was apparently something new Eve's in experience:
not that she was formed minus libido, but that in the beginning her impulses
were manageable because they weren't easily stimulated.
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 supremacy; 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; and it's universal rather than pertaining to any one
particular region because at this point in time, there were no religions of any
kind anywhere on earth.
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 herself
tasting the fruit, things may have turned out quite differently.
_
• 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. We could probably add melancholy to that
list.
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
1:28.
• 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
fruit.
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 physical and emotional unpleasantries associated with
bearing children came about via the hand of God and it's apparently due to
1) listening to the Serpent, and 2) leading her husband to disobey God.
There's more.
• Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband,
The Hebrew of that passage is apparently somewhat difficult; not even the
great rabbis Rashi and Ramban were in agreement how best to interpret it.
But it appears to me simply a requirement that women reserve their
passions, and their allure, for the guy they marry.
* Extramarital allure is a serious problem in 2022 America. It's been quite
few decades since red-blooded men could go to a California beach without their
minds being dragged down to the depths of Hell. Allure has gotten so out of
control that even girls as young as middle school are dressing themselves
like tramps.
This "desire" spoken of was apparently something new Eve's in experience:
not that she was formed minus libido, but that in the beginning her impulses
were manageable because they weren't easily stimulated.
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 supremacy; 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; and it's universal rather than pertaining to any one
particular region because at this point in time, there were no religions of any
kind anywhere on earth.
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 herself
tasting the fruit, things may have turned out quite differently.
_
.
• Gen 3:17 . .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" cursed be
the ground because of you
This particular curse isn't a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit. It's
directly relative to Adam discarding God's explicit instructions and yielding to
his wife's persuasion.
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.
Unfortunately the abundant swarms of life that God created in the beginning
would, at this point, begin to thin out as the competition for available natural
food stuffs would begin to intensify.
• 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, beans, wheat, spelt, barley, oats,
and rice; et al.
In their whole grain natural form, cereals are a rich source of vitamins,
minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. After refinement, grains are
pretty much good for nothing but carbs unless they're fortified with artificial
supplements. There was a time when bread was genuinely a staff of life; but
modern industrial farming methods have made that no longer true for quite
a few items of produce.
NOTE: The Hebrew word translated "grasses" also includes shoots, i.e.
sprouts. In point of fact, some plants are better eaten as sprouts rather than
adults, e.g. asparagus and cattails.
_
• Gen 3:17 . .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" cursed be
the ground because of you
This particular curse isn't a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit. It's
directly relative to Adam discarding God's explicit instructions and yielding to
his wife's persuasion.
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.
Unfortunately the abundant swarms of life that God created in the beginning
would, at this point, begin to thin out as the competition for available natural
food stuffs would begin to intensify.
• 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, beans, wheat, spelt, barley, oats,
and rice; et al.
In their whole grain natural form, cereals are a rich source of vitamins,
minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. After refinement, grains are
pretty much good for nothing but carbs unless they're fortified with artificial
supplements. There was a time when bread was genuinely a staff of life; but
modern industrial farming methods have made that no longer true for quite
a few items of produce.
NOTE: The Hebrew word translated "grasses" also includes shoots, i.e.
sprouts. In point of fact, some plants are better eaten as sprouts rather than
adults, e.g. asparagus and cattails.
_
.
The verse below is quoted verbatim from a version of Genesis; but though
accurate enough, it contains misinformation. Watch for it.
• 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.
First off, the woman herself wasn't prohibited from eating fruit from the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, neither she nor the man were
prohibited from touching it.
The woman failed to repeat exactly what God said, rather, she interpreted
what He said. Apparently, in her mind's eye, the ban on eating the fruit
included herself, plus implied not touching it. Consequently; her 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.
The woman fell prey to a very human weakness: that of not only of
interpreting God, but of a tendency to embellish His instructions and make
them more cumbersome and more strict than they really are.
_
The verse below is quoted verbatim from a version of Genesis; but though
accurate enough, it contains misinformation. Watch for it.
• 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.
First off, the woman herself wasn't prohibited from eating fruit from the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, neither she nor the man were
prohibited from touching it.
The woman failed to repeat exactly what God said, rather, she interpreted
what He said. Apparently, in her mind's eye, the ban on eating the fruit
included herself, plus implied not touching it. Consequently; her 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.
The woman fell prey to a very human weakness: that of not only of
interpreting God, but of a tendency to embellish His instructions and make
them more cumbersome and more strict than they really are.
_
.
• Gen 2:1-3 . .Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their
hosts. And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done;
and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested
from all His work which God had created and made.
The seventh day memorialized the completion of creation. However,
although it was made a holy day, it wasn't made a day of obligation until
quite a few years later: after Noah's flood, and not till the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
An important thing to note is that God is still on sabbatical, viz: the other six
days were bounded by an evening and a morning whereas the seventh isn't
bounded; indicating that it hasn't ended, i.e. God has yet to pick up where
He left off and begin adding to the current grand scheme of things.
The seventh day of the civil week was eventually labeled "sabbath" which is
from a Hebrew word that basically refers to an intermission, i.e. a pause. It
became an important day for Jews (Ex 31:16-17) but has never been made
a special day for Gentiles, that is; unless they immigrate to Israel; wherein a
one day pause in folks' weekly routines are supposed to be the law of the
land. (Deut 5:12-14)
FYI: Besides sabbath days, there are also sabbath years. (Lev 25:1-7 &
Ex 23:10-11))
A day off once a week is not only humane, but also reminds the Jews that
the cosmos-- all its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of
intelligent design. It also reminds them that the God of their providence is
extremely strong. In point of fact: Abraham knew their God as 'El Shadday
(Gen 17:1) the God of every kind of power and control that can be named,
and then some: an unstoppable juggernaut beyond compare.
• Gen 18:14 . . Is anything too hard for The Lord?
_
• Gen 2:1-3 . .Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their
hosts. And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done;
and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested
from all His work which God had created and made.
The seventh day memorialized the completion of creation. However,
although it was made a holy day, it wasn't made a day of obligation until
quite a few years later: after Noah's flood, and not till the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
An important thing to note is that God is still on sabbatical, viz: the other six
days were bounded by an evening and a morning whereas the seventh isn't
bounded; indicating that it hasn't ended, i.e. God has yet to pick up where
He left off and begin adding to the current grand scheme of things.
The seventh day of the civil week was eventually labeled "sabbath" which is
from a Hebrew word that basically refers to an intermission, i.e. a pause. It
became an important day for Jews (Ex 31:16-17) but has never been made
a special day for Gentiles, that is; unless they immigrate to Israel; wherein a
one day pause in folks' weekly routines are supposed to be the law of the
land. (Deut 5:12-14)
FYI: Besides sabbath days, there are also sabbath years. (Lev 25:1-7 &
Ex 23:10-11))
A day off once a week is not only humane, but also reminds the Jews that
the cosmos-- all its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of
intelligent design. It also reminds them that the God of their providence is
extremely strong. In point of fact: Abraham knew their God as 'El Shadday
(Gen 17:1) the God of every kind of power and control that can be named,
and then some: an unstoppable juggernaut beyond compare.
• Gen 18:14 . . Is anything too hard for The Lord?
_
.
• Gen 7:19-20 . .When the waters had swelled much more upon the earth,
all the highest mountains everywhere under the sky were covered. Fifteen
cubits higher did the waters swell, as the mountains were covered.
FAQ: Is it possible that the Flood was local rather than global?
REPLY: Well; the problem with that theory is: the waters breached the
highest mountains by fifteen cubits (22½ feet). So then, if perchance Noah
lived in a geographic basin, the waters would have overflowed the
mountains surrounding him and kept on going before they ever got up to
that 22½ feet of extra elevation.
But the water would start spilling past Noah's area long before it breached
the tops of the highest mountains surrounding him because mountain ranges
aren't shaped smooth, level, and planed like the rim of a domestic bath tub.
No; they're very irregular and consist of high points and low points; viz:
peaks, valleys, canyons, saddles, and passes.
Thus mountain ranges make poor bath tubs because you would lose water
through the low points before it even had a chance to fill to the peaks. In
point of fact, were the sides of your bathtub shaped like a mountain range;
you could never fill it. And in trying to; just end up with water all over the
floor.
22½ feet may not seem like a lot of water but when you consider the
diameter of the Earth, that is an enormous amount when it's above the
highest mountains. How high were the highest mountains in Noah's day?
Nobody really knows. But just supposing the tallest at that time was about
equal to California's Mount Laguna east of San Diego; viz: 5,738 feet above
sea level-- about 1.1 miles. Adding 22½ feet to that comes out to
approximately 5,761 feet.
The amount of rain it would take to accumulate that much water in only
forty days would be something like six global feet of depth per hour (not
taking into consideration that the diameter of the water's surface would
increase as the water got deeper)
To put that in perspective: the lobby of the Empire State Building in New
York city is approximately 47 feet above sea level. At 6 feet per hour, the
lobby would be under water in less than eight hours. The whole building,
lightening rod and all; would be under water in just a little over ten days.
The new One World Trade Center would be gone in about thirteen days, and
Denver in less than thirty-seven.
FYI: It's sometimes objected that there is no geological evidence to support
the Flood. Well it only lasted a year so what do the skeptics expect? And
besides, it was essentially standing water rather than flowing water so it
would've produced relatively little erosion, if any. It's likely effect would've
been sedimentary.
And the water was removed all at the same time from all over the globe
rather than drained off from a single location, viz: God didn't pull the plug,
so to speak. And then we should also take into consideration that though the
Flood's arrival was swift and violent, it's removal was relatively gradual and
gentle.
_
• Gen 7:19-20 . .When the waters had swelled much more upon the earth,
all the highest mountains everywhere under the sky were covered. Fifteen
cubits higher did the waters swell, as the mountains were covered.
FAQ: Is it possible that the Flood was local rather than global?
REPLY: Well; the problem with that theory is: the waters breached the
highest mountains by fifteen cubits (22½ feet). So then, if perchance Noah
lived in a geographic basin, the waters would have overflowed the
mountains surrounding him and kept on going before they ever got up to
that 22½ feet of extra elevation.
But the water would start spilling past Noah's area long before it breached
the tops of the highest mountains surrounding him because mountain ranges
aren't shaped smooth, level, and planed like the rim of a domestic bath tub.
No; they're very irregular and consist of high points and low points; viz:
peaks, valleys, canyons, saddles, and passes.
Thus mountain ranges make poor bath tubs because you would lose water
through the low points before it even had a chance to fill to the peaks. In
point of fact, were the sides of your bathtub shaped like a mountain range;
you could never fill it. And in trying to; just end up with water all over the
floor.
22½ feet may not seem like a lot of water but when you consider the
diameter of the Earth, that is an enormous amount when it's above the
highest mountains. How high were the highest mountains in Noah's day?
Nobody really knows. But just supposing the tallest at that time was about
equal to California's Mount Laguna east of San Diego; viz: 5,738 feet above
sea level-- about 1.1 miles. Adding 22½ feet to that comes out to
approximately 5,761 feet.
The amount of rain it would take to accumulate that much water in only
forty days would be something like six global feet of depth per hour (not
taking into consideration that the diameter of the water's surface would
increase as the water got deeper)
To put that in perspective: the lobby of the Empire State Building in New
York city is approximately 47 feet above sea level. At 6 feet per hour, the
lobby would be under water in less than eight hours. The whole building,
lightening rod and all; would be under water in just a little over ten days.
The new One World Trade Center would be gone in about thirteen days, and
Denver in less than thirty-seven.
FYI: It's sometimes objected that there is no geological evidence to support
the Flood. Well it only lasted a year so what do the skeptics expect? And
besides, it was essentially standing water rather than flowing water so it
would've produced relatively little erosion, if any. It's likely effect would've
been sedimentary.
And the water was removed all at the same time from all over the globe
rather than drained off from a single location, viz: God didn't pull the plug,
so to speak. And then we should also take into consideration that though the
Flood's arrival was swift and violent, it's removal was relatively gradual and
gentle.
_
.
• Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they
bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of
renown.
One of the Bible's Hebrew word for giants is rapha' (raw-faw') which appears
in numerous places throughout the Old Testament and typically always
indicates brutish people of large physical stature, e.g. Goliath. But that's not
the word for giants here. Instead it's nephiyl (nef-eel') which appears in only
two verses in the entire Old Testament; here and in Numbers 13:33.
The word is somewhat ambiguous, but it mostly pertains to "men of old,
men of renown" viz: famous alpha males; e.g. Genghis Khan of Mongolia,
and Alexander the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter Alekseyevich
Romanov of Russia, Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun Minamoto no
Yoritomo of Japan, conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain, Timur: founder
of the Timurid dynasty, and Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur: founder of the
Mughal dynasty that ruled the Indian subcontinent for over three centuries;
and of course guys like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao
Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Xi Jinping,
and Kim Jong Un.
In other words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people;
but mostly strong personalities, i.e. especially bullies whose ambition is to
quite dominate others, i.e. despots, dictators, and tyrants, etc. Those kinds
of people don't just want power: they want to own your soul, censor your
information, and control the content of your thoughts.
Men who seek to dominate others are often the least suitable to do so; and
back there in Noah's day that was certainly true. The moral quality of the
world built by the governance of the nehiyl was so poor that it necessitated
the Flood; just prior to which the Bible says:
"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart
was filled with pain. So He said: I will wipe mankind, whom I have created,
from the face of the earth-- men and animals, and creatures that move
along the ground, and birds of the air --for I am grieved that I have made
them." (Gen 6:5-7)
_
• Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they
bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of
renown.
One of the Bible's Hebrew word for giants is rapha' (raw-faw') which appears
in numerous places throughout the Old Testament and typically always
indicates brutish people of large physical stature, e.g. Goliath. But that's not
the word for giants here. Instead it's nephiyl (nef-eel') which appears in only
two verses in the entire Old Testament; here and in Numbers 13:33.
The word is somewhat ambiguous, but it mostly pertains to "men of old,
men of renown" viz: famous alpha males; e.g. Genghis Khan of Mongolia,
and Alexander the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter Alekseyevich
Romanov of Russia, Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun Minamoto no
Yoritomo of Japan, conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain, Timur: founder
of the Timurid dynasty, and Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur: founder of the
Mughal dynasty that ruled the Indian subcontinent for over three centuries;
and of course guys like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao
Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Xi Jinping,
and Kim Jong Un.
In other words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people;
but mostly strong personalities, i.e. especially bullies whose ambition is to
quite dominate others, i.e. despots, dictators, and tyrants, etc. Those kinds
of people don't just want power: they want to own your soul, censor your
information, and control the content of your thoughts.
Men who seek to dominate others are often the least suitable to do so; and
back there in Noah's day that was certainly true. The moral quality of the
world built by the governance of the nehiyl was so poor that it necessitated
the Flood; just prior to which the Bible says:
"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart
was filled with pain. So He said: I will wipe mankind, whom I have created,
from the face of the earth-- men and animals, and creatures that move
along the ground, and birds of the air --for I am grieved that I have made
them." (Gen 6:5-7)
_
.
• Gen 10:8-9 . . Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty
warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before The Lord; that is why it
is said: Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before The Lord. The first centers of
his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar.
At first, mankind was scattered out in individual clans, and leadership was
pretty much restricted to local patriarchal Dons and Sheiks.
But Nimrod wasn't content with local rule. He was resolved not only to be
head and shoulders above his neighbors-- not only to be eminent among
them but to lord it over them.
There are some in whom ambition, achievement, and affectation of dominion
seem to be bred in the bone. Nothing short of Hell itself will humble and
break the proud, domineering spirits of men such as those.
The same spirit that actuated the mighty men and the men of renown prior
to the Flood, (by reason of whom the Flood came) now revived in Nimrod; a
nephiyl personage with humble beginnings: first as a professional hunter;
probably supplying meat to frontier towns and selling pelts at trading posts.
That was likely Nimrod's career path up until his exploits became famous
and he began to realize it was far more profitable to go into politics.
Lots of great men, some good and some bad, had humble beginnings--
Abraham Lincoln, King David, and even Hitler. Timely circumstances, and
fortuitous events, catapulted those blokes up to very high levels of control
over their fellow men.
A contemporary case in point is former US President Barak Hussein Obama:
a man who had little to no chance of winning a US Senate seat had it not
been for his shoo-in opponent's carnal indiscretions.
From thence, the voting public's disgust with the Republican party, coupled
with their infatuation with the color of Mr. Obama's skin (he's not really
Black, he's mulatto), practically assured his election to America's highest
federal office. He was but a junior senator with like zero executive
experience; yet there he was flying around the world in Air Force One.
To this very day Nimrod is still known as the outdoorsman who would be
king. He was such a famous icon of that day that his example became
descriptive of others who worked their way to the top like he did-- men of
vision, daring, energy, strong personal ambition, and dogged perseverance.
The common personality trait, among such men (and certain women) is their
strong desire not just to govern, but to quite dominate. There are those for
whom it isn't enough to win; no, it isn't enough for people like that to win:
everyone else has to lose. They don't want 50% market share, nor even
90% no, they're content with nothing less than 100%
Actually, Nimrod was one of the great men of history, though so little is
written about him. He was the first statesmen to successfully unite the
world; and it was such a solid unity that only divine intervention could bring
it down.
_
• Gen 10:8-9 . . Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty
warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before The Lord; that is why it
is said: Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before The Lord. The first centers of
his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar.
At first, mankind was scattered out in individual clans, and leadership was
pretty much restricted to local patriarchal Dons and Sheiks.
But Nimrod wasn't content with local rule. He was resolved not only to be
head and shoulders above his neighbors-- not only to be eminent among
them but to lord it over them.
There are some in whom ambition, achievement, and affectation of dominion
seem to be bred in the bone. Nothing short of Hell itself will humble and
break the proud, domineering spirits of men such as those.
The same spirit that actuated the mighty men and the men of renown prior
to the Flood, (by reason of whom the Flood came) now revived in Nimrod; a
nephiyl personage with humble beginnings: first as a professional hunter;
probably supplying meat to frontier towns and selling pelts at trading posts.
That was likely Nimrod's career path up until his exploits became famous
and he began to realize it was far more profitable to go into politics.
Lots of great men, some good and some bad, had humble beginnings--
Abraham Lincoln, King David, and even Hitler. Timely circumstances, and
fortuitous events, catapulted those blokes up to very high levels of control
over their fellow men.
A contemporary case in point is former US President Barak Hussein Obama:
a man who had little to no chance of winning a US Senate seat had it not
been for his shoo-in opponent's carnal indiscretions.
From thence, the voting public's disgust with the Republican party, coupled
with their infatuation with the color of Mr. Obama's skin (he's not really
Black, he's mulatto), practically assured his election to America's highest
federal office. He was but a junior senator with like zero executive
experience; yet there he was flying around the world in Air Force One.
To this very day Nimrod is still known as the outdoorsman who would be
king. He was such a famous icon of that day that his example became
descriptive of others who worked their way to the top like he did-- men of
vision, daring, energy, strong personal ambition, and dogged perseverance.
The common personality trait, among such men (and certain women) is their
strong desire not just to govern, but to quite dominate. There are those for
whom it isn't enough to win; no, it isn't enough for people like that to win:
everyone else has to lose. They don't want 50% market share, nor even
90% no, they're content with nothing less than 100%
Actually, Nimrod was one of the great men of history, though so little is
written about him. He was the first statesmen to successfully unite the
world; and it was such a solid unity that only divine intervention could bring
it down.
_