Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #31

Post by WebersHome »

.
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.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #32

Post by WebersHome »

.
Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

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

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the so-called fallen nature is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's biological father. However; God constructed Eve with material taken from Adam's body prior to the forbidden fruit incident. Since he tasted the fruit after she was born; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to Eve by means of procreation.

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

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 worked. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they immediately set to work with the fig leaves.


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

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the world, it 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 do his lethal work on people. . . in the womb or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve 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)

In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor by one's biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent-- ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a simple matter of keeping the Serpent's paws off him.

"He has no hold on me" (John 14:30)


NOTE: "Serpent" is certainly an appropriate name for the Devil seeing as how snakes are typically portrayed in scripture as poisonous; for example Num 21:5-9.
_

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #33

Post by WebersHome »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #34

Post by WebersHome »

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41)

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

"And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10)

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


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

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

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

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

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #35

Post by WebersHome »

.
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.
_

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #36

Post by WebersHome »

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

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

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

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

To my knowledge, none of Eve's children were virgin-conceived; but even had they been, those would've still been Adam's children because her body was made with materials taken from his.

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

"When the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman" (Gal 4:4)


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

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

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

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

Romans carried out the dirty business of crucifying Christ, but his own countrymen are responsible for getting him executed. (Matt 26:3-5, Act 7:52)

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


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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #37

Post by WebersHome »

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

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

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 very difficult; not even the great rabbis Rashi and Ramban were in agreement how best to interpret it. But it appears to me simply the very first prohibition against adultery and pre-marital 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 right and wrong.

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

And then there's this:


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

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

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

Gen 3:16d isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's place in church too— all churches.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." (1Cor 14:34)

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

"Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." (1Tim 2:11-14)

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #38

Post by WebersHome »

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

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

Gen 3:17b . . Cursed be the ground because ofyou

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

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

God somehow manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now no longer produces as well as it did in the beginning. Seeing as how He invented soil's chemistry in the first place, then it likely wasn't too difficult for Him to alter it's behavior.

Unfortunately the abundant swarms of life that God created in the beginning would, at that point, begin to thin out as the competition for available natural food stuffs would begin to intensify.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #39

Post by WebersHome »

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

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

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

There is one "living" that Eve did not produce and that's her own self. She was constructed from organic human material taken from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life traceable to Eve is traceable to Adam.


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

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

The word for "Eve" is from Chavvah (khav-vaw') and means: life-giver.

Genesis says Adam named his wife Eve because she was the life-giver of all the living, not just a portion of the living. Some people have a problem with that. They just can't believe she's everybody's mother.

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

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


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

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Sage
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious

Post #40

Post by WebersHome »

.
Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". i.e. a fellow deity of equal status.

In other words; Man made himself a fellow deity of equal status by placing his own wants ahead of God's.

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

» We've been seeing some anarchy in 2020 USA by unruly elements taking the law into their own hands with riots, looting and vandalism in the name of "social justice" which not all that long ago was condemned as mob rule.


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

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

Gen 3:22c . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!

The Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits.

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

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

Post Reply