original sin
- Thread starter randini
- 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 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,
Having successfully tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions,
and found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to
influence her thinking a bit more.
The Serpent was aware that the forbidden fruit wasn't toxic; that much of
his statement was true. But it was a half-truth rather than the whole truth.
What he didn't tell the woman was that death via the fruit would come to
her indirectly, by means of Adam eating it rather than her own eating.
• Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Ironically, the woman was already like God in some respects in that she
was created in His image. (Gen 1:26-27, Jas 3:9)
The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue.
In time the woman's eyes were opened and she obtained an intuitive
discernment of good and evil. (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22)
FAQ: How did the Serpent know that the woman would obtain an intuitive
discernment of good and evil by eating the forbidden fruit?
A: He had the ability to make it happen. But of course the Serpent kept that
part back from the woman and led her to believe that the chemistry of the
forbidden fruit would do the trick.
Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that the woman's creator was not only
dishonest, but was also withholding the tree to keep her in check: much in
the way that modern dictators keep their citizens in line by utilizing illiteracy,
control of radio and television programming, suppressing and/or slanting
print media, restricting contact with foreigners, and limiting internet access.
In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very
same tree and He didn't want to share its fruit lest the woman become savvy
enough to go out on her own without depending so much upon her maker.
In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for
the Serpent's cunning nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat wasn't
inevitable. She could've easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to her
guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again until the Serpent
got disgusted and gave up. She also could've talked the matter over with
her husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's
instructions early on and left her husband out of it; thus laying the
groundwork for the utter ruin of her own posterity.
_
• Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,
Having successfully tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions,
and found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to
influence her thinking a bit more.
The Serpent was aware that the forbidden fruit wasn't toxic; that much of
his statement was true. But it was a half-truth rather than the whole truth.
What he didn't tell the woman was that death via the fruit would come to
her indirectly, by means of Adam eating it rather than her own eating.
• Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Ironically, the woman was already like God in some respects in that she
was created in His image. (Gen 1:26-27, Jas 3:9)
The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue.
In time the woman's eyes were opened and she obtained an intuitive
discernment of good and evil. (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22)
FAQ: How did the Serpent know that the woman would obtain an intuitive
discernment of good and evil by eating the forbidden fruit?
A: He had the ability to make it happen. But of course the Serpent kept that
part back from the woman and led her to believe that the chemistry of the
forbidden fruit would do the trick.
Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that the woman's creator was not only
dishonest, but was also withholding the tree to keep her in check: much in
the way that modern dictators keep their citizens in line by utilizing illiteracy,
control of radio and television programming, suppressing and/or slanting
print media, restricting contact with foreigners, and limiting internet access.
In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very
same tree and He didn't want to share its fruit lest the woman become savvy
enough to go out on her own without depending so much upon her maker.
In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for
the Serpent's cunning nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat wasn't
inevitable. She could've easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to her
guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again until the Serpent
got disgusted and gave up. She also could've talked the matter over with
her husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's
instructions early on and left her husband out of it; thus laying the
groundwork for the utter ruin of her own posterity.
_
.
Continued From Posts No.162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating
By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for
human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good
rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous
if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the
tree.
• Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes,
Most fruits and vegetables are appealing-- just look at bananas and pears
and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and
carrots, and radishes, and plums and mangoes and strawberries and
whatever. God doubtless made them that way so Man could not only nourish
himself, but also enjoy his food; viz: not only eat because he has to, but
also because he'd like to.
• Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,
The Hebrew word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal') which essentially means
circumspect, i.e. sensible; which Webster's defines as careful to consider all
circumstances and possible consequences, viz: prudence.
People with a high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life
while those of us with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide
what's best.
Sakal shows up no less than thirteen times in the book of Proverbs alone,
and is always depicted as desirable; so it's not like Eve was wanting
something that was eo ipso bad for her.
Eve apparently assumed that the tree would elevate her IQ and at the same
time enable her to be sensible; when it reality the tree's effects were only
related to moral values.
Anyway, he woman probably figured that a fruit as attractive to the eye, and
appealing to one's mind, as that of the forbidden tree couldn't possibly be as
bad as God led them to believe. I mean, if it at least had some sharp
needles like cactus pears, or maybe a prickly surface like a pineapple, then it
would at least have been a bit intimidating; but the forbidden fruit was
nothing like that; no, it looked very benevolent.
NOTE: Ironically, the woman's first step towards obtaining wisdom was to do
something really stupid.
• Gen 3:6d . . she took of its fruit and ate.
The important thing to note at this point, is that the woman was unaffected
by the fruit: she experienced no ill side effects and went right on naked as
usual; feeling no shame about it whatsoever.
• Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
I have to wonder why the husband followed his wife's lead and did
something he knew full well to be non compliance with God's edict and
putting himself at risk of death. Genesis doesn't reveal why Adam chose to
eat the fruit. I suppose he had his reasons, but apparently God didn't think
they were sufficient to excuse the man's mistake.
But I think Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on his wife for
some time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he
surely had to wonder if maybe he misunderstood God.
I think most husbands would sympathize with Adam. I mean: he was told by
a supposedly competent source that the forbidden tree was unfit for human
consumption. But here's your wife sitting right beside you happily munching
away and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a
reasonable man supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that?
NOTE: 1Tim 2:14 is oftentimes used to allege that Adam wasn't tricked into
eating the fruit. But the trickery in view is related to the Serpent. In other
words: Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil, instead, he was fooled by his wife.
In point of fact, up ahead God is going to lower the boom on Adam for
allowing the woman to lead him by the nose like a sheep to the slaughter;
so to speak.
_
Continued From Posts No.162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating
By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for
human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good
rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous
if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the
tree.
• Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes,
Most fruits and vegetables are appealing-- just look at bananas and pears
and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and
carrots, and radishes, and plums and mangoes and strawberries and
whatever. God doubtless made them that way so Man could not only nourish
himself, but also enjoy his food; viz: not only eat because he has to, but
also because he'd like to.
• Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,
The Hebrew word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal') which essentially means
circumspect, i.e. sensible; which Webster's defines as careful to consider all
circumstances and possible consequences, viz: prudence.
People with a high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life
while those of us with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide
what's best.
Sakal shows up no less than thirteen times in the book of Proverbs alone,
and is always depicted as desirable; so it's not like Eve was wanting
something that was eo ipso bad for her.
Eve apparently assumed that the tree would elevate her IQ and at the same
time enable her to be sensible; when it reality the tree's effects were only
related to moral values.
Anyway, he woman probably figured that a fruit as attractive to the eye, and
appealing to one's mind, as that of the forbidden tree couldn't possibly be as
bad as God led them to believe. I mean, if it at least had some sharp
needles like cactus pears, or maybe a prickly surface like a pineapple, then it
would at least have been a bit intimidating; but the forbidden fruit was
nothing like that; no, it looked very benevolent.
NOTE: Ironically, the woman's first step towards obtaining wisdom was to do
something really stupid.
• Gen 3:6d . . she took of its fruit and ate.
The important thing to note at this point, is that the woman was unaffected
by the fruit: she experienced no ill side effects and went right on naked as
usual; feeling no shame about it whatsoever.
• Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
I have to wonder why the husband followed his wife's lead and did
something he knew full well to be non compliance with God's edict and
putting himself at risk of death. Genesis doesn't reveal why Adam chose to
eat the fruit. I suppose he had his reasons, but apparently God didn't think
they were sufficient to excuse the man's mistake.
But I think Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on his wife for
some time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he
surely had to wonder if maybe he misunderstood God.
I think most husbands would sympathize with Adam. I mean: he was told by
a supposedly competent source that the forbidden tree was unfit for human
consumption. But here's your wife sitting right beside you happily munching
away and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a
reasonable man supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that?
NOTE: 1Tim 2:14 is oftentimes used to allege that Adam wasn't tricked into
eating the fruit. But the trickery in view is related to the Serpent. In other
words: Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil, instead, he was fooled by his wife.
In point of fact, up ahead God is going to lower the boom on Adam for
allowing the woman to lead him by the nose like a sheep to the slaughter;
so to speak.
_
.
Continued From Posts No.163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived
that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made
themselves loincloths.
Adam was warned that he would lose immortality by tasting the forbidden
fruit, but it appears he wasn't warned about this new perception of
themselves; at least not on record. If we can safely read between the lines,
then we may assume that he and God discussed this issue during one of
their daily meetings. And again, the prophets didn't record everything they
knew. For example; prophecy predicted that Jesus would be called a
Nazarene (Matt 2:19-23) but good luck finding that in the Old Testament
because it isn't there.
It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did the woman get it?
She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
born; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to
her by means of procreation.
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because the woman was the first to
eat it, and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and
went about in the buff as usual; the woman's self awareness was
unchanged, and her feelings about the human body remained the same. It
wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to think that full frontal
nudity is indecent; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more
serious than the chemistry of that fruit.
Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives:
either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent,
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)
He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?
A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, they would come via a male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom
5:12-21)
FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of
the womb?
A: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)
NOTE: I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting
blame away from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to
believe biological fathers propagate the fallen nature; when it's been the
Serpent all along.
How he has managed to deceive so many people for so long a time I don't
know, but what's really ironic about it is that there are people behind pulpits,
and chairing whole Sunday school departments, helping him do it as
unsuspecting accomplices; which goes to show that if an idea is repeated often
enough, widely enough, and loud enough by people held in high regard; pretty
soon it's accepted as fact by the masses without thought or question.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong;
Gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
( Thomas Paine )
_
Continued From Posts No.163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived
that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made
themselves loincloths.
Adam was warned that he would lose immortality by tasting the forbidden
fruit, but it appears he wasn't warned about this new perception of
themselves; at least not on record. If we can safely read between the lines,
then we may assume that he and God discussed this issue during one of
their daily meetings. And again, the prophets didn't record everything they
knew. For example; prophecy predicted that Jesus would be called a
Nazarene (Matt 2:19-23) but good luck finding that in the Old Testament
because it isn't there.
It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did the woman get it?
She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
born; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to
her by means of procreation.
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because the woman was the first to
eat it, and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and
went about in the buff as usual; the woman's self awareness was
unchanged, and her feelings about the human body remained the same. It
wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to think that full frontal
nudity is indecent; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more
serious than the chemistry of that fruit.
Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives:
either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent,
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)
He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?
A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, they would come via a male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom
5:12-21)
FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of
the womb?
A: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)
NOTE: I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting
blame away from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to
believe biological fathers propagate the fallen nature; when it's been the
Serpent all along.
How he has managed to deceive so many people for so long a time I don't
know, but what's really ironic about it is that there are people behind pulpits,
and chairing whole Sunday school departments, helping him do it as
unsuspecting accomplices; which goes to show that if an idea is repeated often
enough, widely enough, and loud enough by people held in high regard; pretty
soon it's accepted as fact by the masses without thought or question.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong;
Gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
( Thomas Paine )
_
In the Word, sin is disobeying the Father. He first gave His will to men verbally in the Garden.
By the time the captivity of Israel had come and reached its near finale Moses was given to save Israel from Pharaoh.
In the wilderness, oral tradition was replaced by the finger of God inscribing the Ten Commandments on stone.
Finally the law was inscribed upon our hearts. We love our father and do our best to obey Him, just as did our Savior as our Example.
By the time the captivity of Israel had come and reached its near finale Moses was given to save Israel from Pharaoh.
In the wilderness, oral tradition was replaced by the finger of God inscribing the Ten Commandments on stone.
Finally the law was inscribed upon our hearts. We love our father and do our best to obey Him, just as did our Savior as our Example.
-
1
- Show all
.
You should probably stick with the traditional interpretation of that passage,
especially in Sunday school, lest you be shouted down and burned at the
stake for heresy; so to speak. I've been down that road.
One Sunday I raised my hand and asked the teacher if he thought Joseph
was born again. The man was utterly confounded by my question, and the
class went into an uproar protesting that John 3:3-8 doesn't apply to Old
Testament personages.
Well; I was pretty badly outnumbered, so I kept quiet after that.
NOTE: 1Tim 2:14 is no doubt seen by some as a gender issue. Well; these
days, my take on that passage would likely provoke the women in Sunday
school infected with misandry to rage like mama bears defending their cubs;
so be careful.
_
You should probably stick with the traditional interpretation of that passage,
especially in Sunday school, lest you be shouted down and burned at the
stake for heresy; so to speak. I've been down that road.
One Sunday I raised my hand and asked the teacher if he thought Joseph
was born again. The man was utterly confounded by my question, and the
class went into an uproar protesting that John 3:3-8 doesn't apply to Old
Testament personages.
Well; I was pretty badly outnumbered, so I kept quiet after that.
NOTE: 1Tim 2:14 is no doubt seen by some as a gender issue. Well; these
days, my take on that passage would likely provoke the women in Sunday
school infected with misandry to rage like mama bears defending their cubs;
so be careful.
_
.
Continued From Posts No.166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the
garden at the breezy time of day;
The Hebrew word for "voice" is somewhat ambiguous. It not only indicates a
vocal sound, but lots of other kinds of noises too; e.g. horns, crackling,
snapping, cackling, bleating, tweeting, roaring, whooshing, swishing,
hissing, barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al.
• Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among the
trees of the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man and said to him: Where
are you?
Since God is omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to mean: Adam;
come out, come out, wherever you are!
• Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was
afraid because I was naked, so I hid.
Adam wasn't totally disrobed; just partially. But even that degree of undress
lacked adequate propriety in his own personal sense of right and wrong.
This incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer, normally
comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men, would probably want to put
something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the
dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)
• Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked? Did you
eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?
In other words: who said undress is indecent? Where'd you get that idea?
Well; nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's
indecent-- the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No;
Adam just "felt" indecent. In other words; all of a sudden Adam's intuition,
viz: his conscience, was telling him that his appearance was unacceptable.
This new influence was a powerful control over Adam that he was totally
unprepared to cope with.
• Gen 3:12 . .The man said: The woman You put at my side-- she gave me
of the tree, and I ate.
This looks to me that Adam attempted to get himself off the hook by
accusing God of entrapment.
• 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;
former US 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.
For example: I once worked in a boatyard with a very hot tempered man.
Previous to his employment with us, we had another with just about the
same temperament who quit right before the second one signed on. Some
time later, the new guy got irate about something or other and said: Now I
know why that other guy was difficult. You made him that way. (chuckle)
Wasn't that a perfectly natural excuse?
I dated a girl like that once. When I pointed out one day that she was
behaving peevishly; she retorted: "I'm only responding to you". (chuckle)
Ms. Peevish employed the age-old excuse of blaming someone else for the
way she acted when really the blame was just simply her own lack of self
control; which can be roughly defined as inadequate restraint exercised over
one's own impulses, emotions, and/or desires.
_
Continued From Posts No.166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the
garden at the breezy time of day;
The Hebrew word for "voice" is somewhat ambiguous. It not only indicates a
vocal sound, but lots of other kinds of noises too; e.g. horns, crackling,
snapping, cackling, bleating, tweeting, roaring, whooshing, swishing,
hissing, barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al.
• Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among the
trees of the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man and said to him: Where
are you?
Since God is omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to mean: Adam;
come out, come out, wherever you are!
• Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was
afraid because I was naked, so I hid.
Adam wasn't totally disrobed; just partially. But even that degree of undress
lacked adequate propriety in his own personal sense of right and wrong.
This incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer, normally
comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men, would probably want to put
something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the
dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)
• Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked? Did you
eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?
In other words: who said undress is indecent? Where'd you get that idea?
Well; nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's
indecent-- the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No;
Adam just "felt" indecent. In other words; all of a sudden Adam's intuition,
viz: his conscience, was telling him that his appearance was unacceptable.
This new influence was a powerful control over Adam that he was totally
unprepared to cope with.
• Gen 3:12 . .The man said: The woman You put at my side-- she gave me
of the tree, and I ate.
This looks to me that Adam attempted to get himself off the hook by
accusing God of entrapment.
• 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;
former US 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.
For example: I once worked in a boatyard with a very hot tempered man.
Previous to his employment with us, we had another with just about the
same temperament who quit right before the second one signed on. Some
time later, the new guy got irate about something or other and said: Now I
know why that other guy was difficult. You made him that way. (chuckle)
Wasn't that a perfectly natural excuse?
I dated a girl like that once. When I pointed out one day that she was
behaving peevishly; she retorted: "I'm only responding to you". (chuckle)
Ms. Peevish employed the age-old excuse of blaming someone else for the
way she acted when really the blame was just simply her own lack of self
control; which can be roughly defined as inadequate restraint exercised over
one's own impulses, emotions, and/or desires.
_
.
Continued From Posts No.170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:14a . .Then the Lord God said to the serpent:
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)
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 feed 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
distant 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 translated "curse" basically 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 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 caught up in the curse too. Up ahead we'll see that even the soil
would be effected. In other words: Adam's progeny would never live on the
planet as it was when their ancient grandparents were created.
In point of fact, an article in the January 15 edition of Scientific American
magazine said: "Earth is past its prime and the biosphere is nearing its end.
All things considered, our planet is only marginally habitable."
The third chapter began by stating that the Serpent was more cunning than
any of the beasts of the field; 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 in God's estimation than the lowest thing on the face of the earth.
_
Continued From Posts No.170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• Gen 3:14a . .Then the Lord God said to the serpent:
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)
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 feed 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
distant 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 translated "curse" basically 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 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 caught up in the curse too. Up ahead we'll see that even the soil
would be effected. In other words: Adam's progeny would never live on the
planet as it was when their ancient grandparents were created.
In point of fact, an article in the January 15 edition of Scientific American
magazine said: "Earth is past its prime and the biosphere is nearing its end.
All things considered, our planet is only marginally habitable."
The third chapter began by stating that the Serpent was more cunning than
any of the beasts of the field; 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 in God's estimation than the lowest thing on the face of the earth.
_
.
Continued From Posts No.174, 170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• 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 poetic language because I have
never seen, nor yet heard of, a species of snake that eats soil for its food.
True, snakes crawl on their bellies; but they probably always did; because
that's the way they're designed. Some snakes live in trees and others live in
water. Those kinds don't spend a whole lot of time on the ground so not all
snakes are alike. I really don't think snakes crawl because they were
condemned to crawl. Nor was every species of snake condemned; just the
one snake in verse 14.
A person who crawls and eats dirt is typically someone held in very low
regard; in other words: a worm. And "all the days of your life" is saying that
God's low opinion of the Serpent will never be rescinded.
Serpents will eat dirt in the kingdom of God; possibly as a perpetual
reminder of Man's first great mistake.
"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like
the ox, and the serpent's food shall be earth." (Isa 65:25)
Today, snakes don't eat earth, they eat prey. How serpents will survive on
dirt is unclear, unless their digestive system will be changed to that of a
night crawler.
Serpents are never portrayed in the Bible as beneficial to Man. They are
always of the poisonous variety and a serious threat to Man's health and well
being. That will all be different in the kingdom of God.
"A babe shall play over a viper's hole, and an infant pass his hand over an
adder's den. In all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done; for
the land shall be filled with devotion to the Lord as water covers the sea. In
that day, the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a
standard to peoples-- nations shall seek his counsel and his abode shall be
honored." (Isa 11:8-10)
NOTE: Targums aren't translations; rather, very old Aramaic paraphrases of
the Hebrew bible. They were authoritative, and spoken aloud in the
synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftarah readings.
Public readings of the scriptures in ancient synagogues were accompanied by
commentary in Aramaic because that was the spoken language of most Jews
in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era. The normal practice was
that after each verse was read from the sacred Torah scroll, an official
commentator known as the Turgeman, or Meturgeman, would then recite
orally an Aramaic explanation; usually from memory.
Targums were utilized in the synagogues before, during, and after the times
of Christ-- being necessary because many of the Jewish people of that day
could not understand Hebrew.
The major Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that
were revised in Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian
Targum has come to light-- Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. The best known
Babylonian Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan.
Targums are important as evidence for a history of thought among the
Jewish communities in Israel and abroad during Christ's day.
_
Continued From Posts No.174, 170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• 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 poetic language because I have
never seen, nor yet heard of, a species of snake that eats soil for its food.
True, snakes crawl on their bellies; but they probably always did; because
that's the way they're designed. Some snakes live in trees and others live in
water. Those kinds don't spend a whole lot of time on the ground so not all
snakes are alike. I really don't think snakes crawl because they were
condemned to crawl. Nor was every species of snake condemned; just the
one snake in verse 14.
A person who crawls and eats dirt is typically someone held in very low
regard; in other words: a worm. And "all the days of your life" is saying that
God's low opinion of the Serpent will never be rescinded.
Serpents will eat dirt in the kingdom of God; possibly as a perpetual
reminder of Man's first great mistake.
"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like
the ox, and the serpent's food shall be earth." (Isa 65:25)
Today, snakes don't eat earth, they eat prey. How serpents will survive on
dirt is unclear, unless their digestive system will be changed to that of a
night crawler.
Serpents are never portrayed in the Bible as beneficial to Man. They are
always of the poisonous variety and a serious threat to Man's health and well
being. That will all be different in the kingdom of God.
"A babe shall play over a viper's hole, and an infant pass his hand over an
adder's den. In all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done; for
the land shall be filled with devotion to the Lord as water covers the sea. In
that day, the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a
standard to peoples-- nations shall seek his counsel and his abode shall be
honored." (Isa 11:8-10)
NOTE: Targums aren't translations; rather, very old Aramaic paraphrases of
the Hebrew bible. They were authoritative, and spoken aloud in the
synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftarah readings.
Public readings of the scriptures in ancient synagogues were accompanied by
commentary in Aramaic because that was the spoken language of most Jews
in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era. The normal practice was
that after each verse was read from the sacred Torah scroll, an official
commentator known as the Turgeman, or Meturgeman, would then recite
orally an Aramaic explanation; usually from memory.
Targums were utilized in the synagogues before, during, and after the times
of Christ-- being necessary because many of the Jewish people of that day
could not understand Hebrew.
The major Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that
were revised in Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian
Targum has come to light-- Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. The best known
Babylonian Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan.
Targums are important as evidence for a history of thought among the
Jewish communities in Israel and abroad during Christ's day.
_
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
The implication is that being born again was not a new teaching and "masters" of OT scripture should have known this already. That means being born again is found in the OT:
1 Sam 10:6-9
6 And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
7 And let it be, when these signs are come unto thee, that thou do as occasion serve thee; for God is with thee.
8 And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do.
9 And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.
Eze_18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Is being a another man and having a another heart (new man and new heart) after receiving the Holy Spirit the same as being born again? I say yes!
2Co_5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Eph_4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
The implication is that being born again was not a new teaching and "masters" of OT scripture should have known this already. That means being born again is found in the OT:
1 Sam 10:6-9
6 And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
7 And let it be, when these signs are come unto thee, that thou do as occasion serve thee; for God is with thee.
8 And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do.
9 And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.
Eze_18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Is being a another man and having a another heart (new man and new heart) after receiving the Holy Spirit the same as being born again? I say yes!
2Co_5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Eph_4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
.
Continued From Posts No.175, 174, 170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• 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 means seed; but not always the
biological kind. It can also mean a product and/or a result (e.g. Isa 53:10)
and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and posterity.
I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible indicating that spirit beings
reproduce; but I have encountered one strongly suggesting that they don't
(Matt 22:30) so I think we should assume that the Serpent's seed would be
something other than biological progeny.
The beginning of the woman's seed was Cain; an obvious product of the
Serpent's handiwork (1John 3:12) and so were a number of the Lord's
religious opponents (John 8:44). So not all the woman's seed would be
against the Serpent rather, quite in league with him.
The woman finally did produce holy seed; beginning with Abel, and then on
down Seth's line to Noah, Abraham, David, and ultimately Jesus. (Gal 4:4)
• Gen 3:15b . . Hers will pound your head, and yours will bite his heel.
The Serpent's bite on Jesus' heel was fatal; however, it wasn't enough to
render him ineffective in his quest to destroy the Serpent. Jesus was
restored to life with immortality and will live to see the woman's ancient
adversary permanently incarcerated. (Rev 20:10)
_
Continued From Posts No.175, 174, 170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• 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 means seed; but not always the
biological kind. It can also mean a product and/or a result (e.g. Isa 53:10)
and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and posterity.
I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible indicating that spirit beings
reproduce; but I have encountered one strongly suggesting that they don't
(Matt 22:30) so I think we should assume that the Serpent's seed would be
something other than biological progeny.
The beginning of the woman's seed was Cain; an obvious product of the
Serpent's handiwork (1John 3:12) and so were a number of the Lord's
religious opponents (John 8:44). So not all the woman's seed would be
against the Serpent rather, quite in league with him.
The woman finally did produce holy seed; beginning with Abel, and then on
down Seth's line to Noah, Abraham, David, and ultimately Jesus. (Gal 4:4)
• Gen 3:15b . . Hers will pound your head, and yours will bite his heel.
The Serpent's bite on Jesus' heel was fatal; however, it wasn't enough to
render him ineffective in his quest to destroy the Serpent. Jesus was
restored to life with immortality and will live to see the woman's ancient
adversary permanently incarcerated. (Rev 20:10)
_
.
Continued From Posts No.177, 175, 174, 170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• 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.
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 the very first prohibition against adultery and
pre-marital intimacy.
Precisely why God waited till this moment to lay down some moral law is a
mystery; but suggests to me that even had they not eaten the forbidden
fruit, He would've gotten around to it; after all, in the beginning, Adam and
his wife knew nothing of morality.
I believe it's reasonable to assume that their association with God would've
eventually included some form of catechism because left to themselves, it
would've been natural for the first couple, in their innocence, to assume it
was okay to sleep with everybody and anybody that opportunity afforded.
_
Continued From Posts No.177, 175, 174, 170, 166, 163, 162, 155, 152, 151, 137, and 133
• 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.
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 the very first prohibition against adultery and
pre-marital intimacy.
Precisely why God waited till this moment to lay down some moral law is a
mystery; but suggests to me that even had they not eaten the forbidden
fruit, He would've gotten around to it; after all, in the beginning, Adam and
his wife knew nothing of morality.
I believe it's reasonable to assume that their association with God would've
eventually included some form of catechism because left to themselves, it
would've been natural for the first couple, in their innocence, to assume it
was okay to sleep with everybody and anybody that opportunity afforded.
_
The story of the fall of man is a highly allusionary tale steeped in metaphoric language.
Was there really a single tree that had drastic consequences?
Probably not!
But from the actions of the Patriarchs in light of the other Laws of the Torah we can make some logical deductions.
That in the Garden in the area of Eden there were new trees popping up all the time. God had probably told Adam to leave the first years fruit alone...to let it be His. And as a gardener Adam and Eve would know which ones were which.
But then came the day they fell...and it probably wasn't just one day but probably several days in westernized thinking.
But the fall indicated a radical shift in thinking. God gave to Adam...Adam gave to God. Adam was given a woman to train and he did...but then decided to use her as a guinea pig to test the poison fruit...and didn't want to be left out of something tasty....then there was that whole worry and embarrassment about being naked...not knowing or trusting in what others thought.
It went from all giving all the time to the worst of the human condition.
Was there really a single tree that had drastic consequences?
Probably not!
But from the actions of the Patriarchs in light of the other Laws of the Torah we can make some logical deductions.
That in the Garden in the area of Eden there were new trees popping up all the time. God had probably told Adam to leave the first years fruit alone...to let it be His. And as a gardener Adam and Eve would know which ones were which.
But then came the day they fell...and it probably wasn't just one day but probably several days in westernized thinking.
But the fall indicated a radical shift in thinking. God gave to Adam...Adam gave to God. Adam was given a woman to train and he did...but then decided to use her as a guinea pig to test the poison fruit...and didn't want to be left out of something tasty....then there was that whole worry and embarrassment about being naked...not knowing or trusting in what others thought.
It went from all giving all the time to the worst of the human condition.