Genesis 1 and 2 ~ Creation

[Webers.Home]

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

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

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

Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice light has the
potential to burn your skin and/or cause permanent eye damage: some
forms of light can even cause cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.

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

In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've
remained in perfect health, but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body
became infected with mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to
age; a condition easily remedied by the tree of life but alas, Adam was
denied access to it..

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

 

[soberxp]

I like to see other people's understanding of the Bible to see if other people's understanding is the same as mine.

But my understanding is that If ate the fruit of the tree of good and evil.

People will distinguish between good and evil, even for a normal sentence and behavior, they will have to distinguish between good and evil.

Just as Cain distinguished Abel's behavior, he thought he was good and Abel was evil, so he killed Abel.

Such a thing may seem to God to be an annoying and damned act.

Adam and Eve became impure in thought and soul because they ate the fruit.

We are the same as Cain.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I will make a
fitting helper for him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and,
while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.
And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a
woman;

The Hebrew word translated "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22
contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's
translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone.

In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how
tsela' should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material
taken from Adam included some of his flesh; and seeing as how the life of
the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) then I think it's safe to assume that the
flesh God took from Adam's body to construct the woman contained some of
his blood too so that the flesh was living flesh instead of dead.

In other words: we can accept "rib" if we allow it a description similar to a
barbecued rib; a serving that contains not bone alone rather, bone, blood,
and meat.

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

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

This section makes it appear that the woman was brought into existence
after the completion of the sixth day. But according to Gen 1:27, the male
and the female were both created at the very same time on the very same
day. In point of fact, the entire human species was created that day. It's
easy to figure out because God completed the cosmos on the sixth day.
From thence He went on a perpetual sabbatical.

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was
evening, and there was morning— the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the
earth were completed in all their vast array." (Gen 1:31-2:1)

If it was all very good, and all completed, then there was nothing else left to
do.

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

A: She was in Adam's body.

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

 

[Webers.Home]

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

In other words: the woman was kin; somebody Adam could relate to; and
the expression became an idiom. (e.g. Gen 29:13-14)

Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is
precisely why God made women: to be their husband's buddy. Therefore
wives who aren't their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can
only be accepted as cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality. Married
men shackled to a maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in
a perpetual cold war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Webers.Home]

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

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

Webster's defines shame as:

1» guilt, or disgrace

2» a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and

3» inhibition.

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

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

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

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

Chapters 3 thru 50
_

 

[Aidan1]

How many in this forum believe the literal creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?

Its a Christian forum. I would expect that everyone in this forum believes this