This Way To Genesis

WebersHome · Sep 22, 2017

-
Genesis 2:21-23a

● 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 for "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"

Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as was Adam. She
was constructed indirectly; viz: from a human tissue sample amputated from
Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently any
and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.

The woman completed the creation of Man; so that Man is actually a
composite unity-- a male part and a female part.

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human
life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

Why wasn't Eve given a chance to fit in with the animals before introducing
her to Adam? Well, I think it's because men can make do with a soccer ball
named Wilson if they have to; but normal women, as a rule, can't. Men and
Women share a lot of similarities; but the resolve to go it solo, to be a
rugged individual, is not one of them. There are exceptions, of course; but
as a rule, women do not care to live alone and unloved in the world. It's
curious, but when we think of hermits; our minds typically think of them as
male because female hermits just seem so contrary to nature.

● Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim: Hot diggity
dog! Now I can get laid! No he didn't say that at all.

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

In other words: finally somebody Adam could relate to; and the expression
became a colloquialism, 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.

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.

POP QUIZ: How many friends do people need to dispel feelings of isolation
and loneliness? Answer: Just one-- if that one is a supportive spouse.

They say dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs are beasts. They
might bring a man his slippers; but a dog lacks the capacity to nurse a man
when he's down with the flu, or sympathize with him when his job is
outsourced to cheap labor in India. No; a human being's best friend is a
spouse that looks out for them.

/

Huckleberry · Sep 22, 2017

Johnny_B said:

WebersHome said:

The Happy Heretic Hacks out more Heresy.

Nehemiah6 · Sep 23, 2017

WebersHome said:

Why are you making stuff up as you go along? The Hebrew clearly states that God took one of Adam's ribs to create Eve. So you have chosen to contradict Scripture, and create an imaginary scenario.

Here's another fanciful idea. The Bible does not teach anywhere, and certainly not in Genesis 2, that the man is part male and part female. Neither does it say that the woman completed the creation of man. While the woman was complementary to the man, that is an entirely different thing.

Frankly I have not explored this thread, but these two imaginary ideas indicate that you are not really interpreting Scripture as it should be interpreted. According to the actual words given.

WebersHome · Sep 23, 2017

-
Genesis 2:23b-25

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

The Hebrew word for "woman" is from '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.

It's also important to note that the woman wasn't constructed from the dust
of the earth. She was constructed from Adam, therefore women are just as
much Adam as Adam; ergo: children born of women are just as much Adam
as Adam: whether virgin-conceived or normally-conceived makes no
difference-- they're all just as much Adam's progeny as Eve's.

● 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 if a man
can't rely on his wife; who can he rely on? Reliance implies faithfulness: day
in, and day out. 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. They quite literally
owned each other.

Adultery is very serious not only because it's immoral, but also because it's
an act of theft. Spouses that cheat on their partners are no different than
carjackers taking an SUV that doesn't belong to them and selling it to a chop
shop.

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.

Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that his mother is another
man's woman. When my son was around 29 years old and home for
Christmas one year, his mother and I were having a disagreement and he
stuck up for her. I had to take my son aside and school him that it is a
serious breach of male etiquette to come between a man and his wife. I let
him get by with it that time; but in another man's home his meddling just
might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.

● 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's stuck
with her for life, and she with him, whether they agree to it or not because
that is what God has decreed.

● Gen 2:25a . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife,

It's very difficult to believe that God fully intended for people to always live
without clothing. So how come early Man didn't need protection for his skin?
Nobody really knows for sure; maybe because human beings had fur, or that
human skin was a whole lot tougher and thicker than now; and far more
resistant to abrasion and sunlight.

Still; nudity seems so impractical. And I would imagine that Adam and his
wife needed to bathe pretty often too. Without clothing to protect their skin
from dust and grime, in no time at all they would be as funky as two pigs in
a puddle.

● Gen 2:25b . . yet they felt no shame.

Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority
or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal nudity; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam was a
product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. 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 nude.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal nudity 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. Some
expositors label this era in the human experience as the age of innocence;
which implies not just an ignorance of ethics; but primarily a lack of self
consciousness-- which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's
self as an object of the observation of others. Had somebody criticized the
first couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their
critic like a man taken leave of his senses.

/

followjesus · Sep 23, 2017

WebersHome said:

Some really good stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of
human life, Adam and Eve, the origin of marriage, the Devil, the first lie, the
first transgression, the origin of human death, the origin of clothing, the first
baby, Cain and Abel, the first murder, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and the
origin of Yhvh's people. "

and in those beginings we see the reason salvation is needed. God creates man and Gives Him dominion over all the earth, gives Him all that is in the earth to rule over. God Gives adam 1 commandment meant for His safe keeping meant to Keep man alive. Satan comes along wanting dominion and authority, Man has been given this, so His method is to infiltrate mans Mind if He can corrupt mans mind and heart, He can wield authority through the rightful Heir of the earth, mankind.

we see by genesis 6 that His plan worked, Man who was made in Gods image and declared very good, is now so evil at Heart, that God the creator is greived and it repents Him that He has even made such a creature as man on the earth. every though and inclination is only evil all the time, and God decides to destroy all flesh on earth man and beast alike. saving a small remnant in noah and His family.

the evil of man, is the will of satan, His will was planted in the garden making a double nature for man part good Like God, and part evil Like satan. the Knowledge of Good and evil is now part of mans understanding, Our mind and heart. wherever there is a sin, satans will is being done. and its fruit is death and destruction to man.

this is why we need a savior to undo what satan did to man through deception, Jesus solves it with the truth. what He did through sin, Jesus undoes with His death, what He accomplished through evil, Jesus undoes through Gods Love. Mans nature was poisoned when they ate the fruit.......Mans nature is Healed through Jesus Christ and the promises of the Gospel.

WebersHome · Sep 24, 2017

-
Genesis 3:1a

● Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of
the field which the Lord God had made.

Probably no other creature in the Bible provokes so much skepticism as the
Serpent. It just smacks of mythology.

But this particular serpent was no ordinary reptile. It was indeed a
remarkable creature. Not only was it capable of language, and able to
communicate on a very sophisticated level with human beings, but it had an
exceptional IQ too. It grasped the significance of a supreme being, and
totally understood the workings of human nature and the human mind. No
mere animal is capable of that degree of insight, cognition, and3
communication.

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

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

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

I have never seen the Serpent myself; nor would I care to. But I know from
Matt 4:1-11 that Christ saw it, and spoke with it. From that passage it's
obvious that the Serpent is capable of human speech, understands human
needs and weaknesses, believes in the existence of God, understands the
concept of worship, a master of sophistry, understands the Bible, and
understands the advantages of manipulating human minds, and world
power.

The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of God to
sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't hesitate to entice a
little nobody like Eve. But Eve was extremely strategic; she was the high
ground in the battle for men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the
mother of all subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root
of humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human race; and it
did. (Eph 2:1-3)

The Serpent seems possessed with a strange, criminal mentality: beyond
comprehension. But then, so are pedophiles, serial killers, unabombers, ISIS
extremists, terrorists, and men like Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo,
Karla Homolka, Ted Kaczynski, and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of criminals
are prisoners of dark minds clouded with anti-social inclinations. The
Serpent, though surely an incredible genius; is nonetheless an evil genius;
not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action comics.

Psychopaths are a cunning breed of predators who lack empathy, remorse,
and impulse control; readily violating social rules and exploiting others to get
what they want. Curiously, psychopaths are often so charming and
manipulative that they are well-concealed behind a mask of normalcy
sometimes for years and even their entire lives.

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

1• Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

2• Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

3• Reckless disregard for the safety of others.

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

5• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.

If those elements sound familiar it's because they're the all-too-typical
management practices of corporations the likes of ENRON, Nike, Nestlé,
Bechtel, Union Carbide, Shell Oil, and Monsanto.

Wall Street is especially brutal. I watched a trader interviewed in a
documentary who said that his first reaction-- upon seeing the Twin Towers
aflame in 2001 --wasn't concern for the families and friends of the 2,300
killed and missing; but rather he inwardly exclaimed: Oh m' Gawd! What will
that do to the price of gold?! In that man's mind, a catastrophe isn't a
tragedy, no, it's an opportunity. Futures traders are very attuned to things
like that; and in their world: nice guys really do finish last.

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

What we see in human nature often mirrors the Serpent's own dark
personality. But the origin of the Serpent's twisted mind is really puzzling.
How did it get that way? Was it a birth defect? Did it bump its head?

I don't know; but one thing is for sure though: the Serpent's fondness for
deceit is living proof that angels are not mindless robots created to obey the
will of God without thought or question. No; they too have a mind of their
own, and the freedom of choice between good and evil-- the very same
choices that Man is at liberty to exercise. Satan chose poorly, and his human
counterparts oftentimes do too.

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

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

Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to cure
humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability lawsuits go after
suppliers who provide the means for humanity to destroy itself.

God gave humanity the liberty to destroy itself; and actually, that's the way
many of us prefer it because we want to make our own choices rather than
have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics limit the choices available to us.

/

WebersHome · Sep 25, 2017

-
Genesis 3:1b-4

● Gen 3:1b . . He said to the woman,

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

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

That's actually a pretty effective sales approach. Many years ago I sold
vacuum cleaners for a little while. I was trained to engage potential
customers in chit-chat, a.k.a. small talk, to break the ice and get them to let
their guards down. In other words; to build some trust before I got down to
the predatory business of talking them into buying something expensive that
they could easily get by without.

Being an innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman would
certainly never suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and
truthful. Up to this point, Eve wasn't even aware that something called a lie
existed. And actually, she didn't even know what honesty was either
because nobody had taught her anything about it yet.

● Gen 3:1c . . Did God really say: You shall not eat of any tree of the
garden?

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

"Shame on him who argues with his Maker, though naught but a potsherd of
earth!" (Isa 45:9)

"All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account. [God] does as He wishes
with the host of heaven, and with the inhabitants of the earth. There is none
to stay His hand or say to Him: What have You done?" (Dan 4:32)

Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning to Eve?
Well, Adam was a tougher nut to crack because he got his intel straight from
the horse's mouth and knew the truth very clearly and without ambiguity.
But the woman quite possibly was instructed second hand, in conversations
with her husband; who was, in effect, her personal rabbi. So it would be
fairly easy to convince Eve that maybe she didn't hear her husband
correctly; or worse; that he didn't know what he was talking about. I mean:
isn't there more than one way to interpret the Bible? How do you know your
way is the right way?

Of course it was ridiculous to suggest the humans were forbidden to eat of
"any" tree. But the Serpent was slowly sneaking up on the woman with
subtle suggestions. Probing for weak points, the Serpent tested her
understanding of God's instructions by asking a question that she should
have been able to answer with relative ease. In response; the woman
bounced right back and quoted God like a pro (or so she thought).

● Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the
fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree
in the middle of the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or
touch it, lest you die.

Is that really what God said? No, that's not what God said. He forbad their
eating the fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)

Eve failed to repeat what God said, rather, she interpreted what He said.
Apparently, in her mind's eye, the ban on eating the fruit implied not
touching it. Consequently; Eve's humanistic reasoning put a spin on God's
instructions so that instead of following them to the letter, the woman
revised them to mean something that God didn't actually say.

Eve fell prey to a very human weakness-- not only of revising God, but of a
tendency to make the laws of God more cumbersome and more strict than
they really are.

Revisions in the form of interpretations change the meanings of God's
sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While often containing a
kernel of truth, revisions are nevertheless not pure truth, rather, amalgams
of truth and human error that falsify God's teachings and direct people off in
the wrong direction; leading them to believe, and to repeat, things that
aren't true.

Revisions are also very useful for manipulating people to favor the Serpent's
wishes rather than their creator's. Thus, without their knowing it, they fall in
line and become the Serpent's sheep instead of Christ's.

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

Here we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth; which
Webster's defines as: a statement that is only partly true and that is
intended to deceive people. In other words: a half-truth contains a kernel of
truth but not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Having already 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 woman's fall is typical. First she revised God's instructions. Then she
listened to someone refute them. Next, she will accept the refuter's
argument, and then she will break with God.

NOTE: Something that Christ's believing followers have to be constantly on
guard against is sophistry; which Webster's defines as subtly deceptive
reasoning and/or argumentation (Eph 4:11-14). Cults typically sustain
themselves by means of sophistry; which of course they call reasonable
and/or sensible. But faith isn't built upon only what makes sense to it;
rather, faith is built upon what's revealed to it.

So be careful out there; most especially with door-to-door missionaries
armed to the teeth with humanistic reasoning, semantic double-speak, and
clever half truths.

/

WebersHome · Sep 26, 2017

-
Genesis 3:5a

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

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

The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue.
In time they did become gods (Gen 3:22, Ps 82) but his prediction was a
half-truth. In other words; he withheld a very important aspect of god-ism;
and that is there is only one true god (2Chron 15:3, Jer 10:10, and John
17:3) so that by default, Eve and her husband became false gods since in
the Bible there is no intermediate layer of gods sandwiched between the true
and the false.

Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that their creator was withholding the tree,
not because it was poisonous or anything like that; but to keep the humans
in check: much in the way that some of the world's despots utilize illiteracy,
control of radio and television programming, restricted contact with
foreigners, and limited internet access to keep their citizens subdued.

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

In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for
the Serpent's intelligence nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat
wasn't inevitable. She could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply
sticking to her guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again
until the Serpent got disgusted and gave up. But no, she dropped God's
instructions early on; and thus set the stage for the utter ruin of her own
posterity.

/

WebersHome · Sep 27, 2017

-
Genesis 3:5b-6

● Gen 3:5b . . who know good from evil.

I think it safe to assume that good and evil in this instance wasn't limited to
morality, rather, included the difference between smart and dumb, e.g. it's
smart to set aside something for the future, while its dumb to spend every
penny from payday to payday. It's also dumb to marry the first person you
meet, while smart to make some comparisons.

The Serpent was correct about one thing though. Eve would know good from
evil after eating from the tree alright; only he didn't tell her that the knowing
would be humanistic rather than divine, i.e. hers would be a natural knowing
rather than an enlightened knowing. In other words; man wasn't designed to
be a god; but rather, the student of a god.

"I know, O Yhvh, that a man's way is not in himself; nor is it in a man who
walks to direct his steps." (Jer 10:23)

● Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for
eating

By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for
human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good
rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous
if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/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, which Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances
and possible consequences, i.e. to be smart and/or prudent.

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 for us. So we end up seeking advice and guidance from experts
because us dummies just aren't sharp enough to go it alone.

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 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.

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

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

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

"Adam was not the one deceived" (1Tim 2:14)

I have to wonder why the husband followed his wife's lead and did
something he knew full well to be 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.

I think Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on Eve for some
time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he surely had
to wonder if maybe God was wrong. I think most husbands would
sympathize with Adam. I mean: here's your wife sitting right beside you
happily munching away on something that you were led to believe was toxic,
and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a
reasonable man supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that
was?

Adam was told by a competent source that the forbidden tree was lethal.
Though he could see for himself that Eve was experiencing no ill side effects;
he should have refused to taste it until at the very least he consulted with
somebody who knows what they're talking about: which in his case was the
maker of the fruit.

There's a useful lesson to be learned from it. In other words: Faith doesn't
rely entirely upon empirical evidence, but instead; believes what's revealed
to it rather than only what makes sense to it.

Eve's apparent immunity to the fruit's toxins wasn't really reason enough to
assume that God's instructions were unreliable. But even had they been
unreliable; it was still wrong of Adam to brush them aside and do as he
pleased. He was told not to eat the fruit. Whether it was actually toxic or
harmless is unimportant. This episode is primarily about the quality of
Adam's attitude towards authority rather than about the quality of the fruit.

/

WebersHome · Sep 28, 2017

-
Genesis 3:7

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

According to 1Tim 2:14, Eve was in violation of Gen 2:16-17 when she
tasted the fruit. But curiously, her eyes weren't opened right away. In other
words: up till Adam tasted the fruit, its effects upon Eve's health were nil;
and in point of fact, there's really no good reason to believe that Adam's
eyes were opened the very instant he tasted the fruit; it's effect upon him
may have been delayed too.

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

Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and bad kicked in with an
intuitive sense of propriety; which Webster's defines as the quality or state
of being proper or suitable, i.e. conformity to what is socially acceptable in
conduct or speech.

In other words: Adam and his wife took it upon themselves to initiate a
dress code due to finding themselves slaves to a humanistic conscience so
powerful that even if Almighty God himself told them it was okay to remain
disrobed; they would not have believed Him.

● Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed together fig leaves and made
themselves loincloths.

I seriously doubt they had a needle and thread. The word for "sew" is taphar
(taw-far') which just simply means to fabricate clothing. If taphar were used
to strictly mean needle and thread; then it would appear that Job stitched
fabric directly to his own skin. (Job 16:15)

But why not bosom coverings? Why not derrière coverings too? Why only
loin coverings? Well it's not too hard to figure out is it? The moment Adam
tasted the forbidden fruit, they developed a guilt complex over sex and the
human body that continues to this day; and I sincerely believe that complex
is the very reason why so many people feel that the male libido is naughty
and sinful. (Those same people rarely, if ever, condemn the female libido.)

Some say there were no agents in the fruit to cause the changes in human
nature that occurred in the Adams. But I'm not so sure. According to an
article in the Oct 8, 2011 issue of the Oregonian; new research reveals that
some, if not all, the plants we eat actually change the behavior of human
genes in ways never before imagined.

A new study led by Chen-Yu Zhang, of Nanjing University, found that
fragments of plant genetic material survive digestion and wind up swimming
in the bloodstreams of humans and cows. Those tiny strands of RNA that
somehow make it through the toxic acids and enzymes in the gut come from
rice and the plant family that includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower
and cabbage. Zhang found that they can muffle or amplify human gene
expression in various ways. The discovery could lead to ways of designing
plants that act as medicine or even change our own genetic structure for the
better (or the worse).

And it's well known what happens to kids when they move into adolescence.
Hormonal chemicals kick in, and their childish innocence vanishes; right out
the window. They lose interest in kid's toys and begin to take an interest in
things more appropriate for their age; including a very noticeable interest in
themselves, and in the opposite sex; and most especially in what others
think about them. In other words: they become self-conscious; which
Webster's defines as: uncomfortably aware of oneself as an object of the
observation of others.

Those adolescent changes aren't miraculous changes-- they're totally
natural, hormonally induced, organic changes. So if kids undergo a natural
kind of change because of the chemicals generated by the glands in their
own bodies, then there is good reason to believe that the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil actually did contain something that caused Adam
and his wife to morph and develop an intuitive sense of propriety; and that
"sense" can't help but influence people's interpretation of Matt 5:28. In other
words they want male libido to be naughty because their forbidden-fruit
intuition compels them to "feel" it's naughty.

At any rate, the pending dialogue, between God and Man in the next few
verses, implies that God himself had no hand in making those two people
change. On the page of scripture, their altered human nature is directly
related to the fruit and to nothing else-- though I've yet to figure out the
delay in Eve's case nor how Adam's tasting the fruit triggered its effect upon
Eve.

So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a complex spiritual
explanation, I suggest it would be better to stick with the biological one and
let it go at that.

/

WebersHome · Sep 29, 2017

-
Genesis 3:8-11

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

The 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,
hissing, barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al.

The breezy time of day is a bit difficult to figure out without really knowing
the climate conditions under which Adam and his wife lived. The breezy time
may have been a routine part of their day when the mist was gently blown
around to irrigate the garden.

The Lord God may have conducted school for the Adams every day at just
about that time; so His arrival was likely expected. It was an opportunity to
share their experiences and ask questions about things in nature that they
didn't fully understand. And maybe they even talked about intelligent life on
other planets, and how to make hot cocoa and pop corn.

Can you imagine the incredible advantage of being in a classroom with the
undisputed expert on everything? You would never need a second opinion,
nor go away wondering if the speaker really knew what he was talking
about.

● Gen 3:8b-9a . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among
the trees of the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man

Why did God call out to the male? Answer: the principle of primogeniture. In
other words: the male was created first, and the female second; ergo: Adam
held the rank of firstborn and also the paterfamilias of his race; which
included his wife who, in a manner of speaking, was his first child.

NOTE: The rank of firstborn is always, and without exception, a male
position. No woman has ever held that rank in the Bible simply because
women are the wrong gender; which explains why the Bible's God has
permitted women neither in the Levitical priesthood nor the Christian
pastorate.

● Gen 3:9b . . and said to him: Where are you?

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

But the important thing to note in this incident, is that God took the initiative
to seek Man, not the other way around.

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

Adam wasn't totally naked; just partially. But even that degree of undress
lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong. I
mean: how many of us would feel comfortable opening the door to guests
while wearing nothing more than a pair of Haynes briefs? Well; prior to the
forbidden fruit incident, everybody could've opened the door dressed like
that without giving it a second thought; but now? It would definitely raise
eyebrows; at least in America anyway.

● Gen 3:11a . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked?

In other words: where'd you get the idea that undress is indecent? Well;
nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's indecent--
the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No; they just "felt"
it's indecent. In other words; it was their intuition telling them that undress
is indecent. Where did they get that? Not from their maker, that's for sure;
no, they got it from that tree.

● Gen 3:11b . . Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you
to eat?

Seeing as how God created the chemistry of that tree, then He knew in
advance how it would alter the human consciousness if people were to ingest
some of it.

That incident easily verifies that humanity's current moral compass is
maladjusted and can't be trusted to provide him with absolutes; which is
precisely why there are nine justices on the US Supreme Court instead of
just one; because one justice alone can't be trusted. In point of fact, it is
extremely rare for all nine justices to agree because they don't render
absolutes; no, they render opinions; and the majority's opinion isn't eo ipso
right; no, it's just the one we have to live with until such a time as it's
overturned by a future majority's opinion.

/

WebersHome · Sep 30, 2017

-
Genesis 3:12-14b

● 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 product
liability.

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

● 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
planet.

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.

/

WebersHome · Oct 1, 2017

-
Genesis 3:14c

● 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)

/

WebersHome · Oct 2, 2017

-
Genesis 3:15-16

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

I don't think the kind of enmity that God spoke of was the kind where
friends fall out of harmony; but rather, He decreed a sort of poetic justice;
viz: "You caused her downfall; and now I'm going to make it so that she
causes yours."

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

The word for "offspring" is from zera' (zeh'-rah) which is an ambiguous
Hebrew word that technically means: seed; but can also mean a product
and/or a result, and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and
posterity.

For example: the 53rd chapter of Isaiah predicts that Yhvh's servant would
"see seed" in spite of the fact that Isaiah also predicted Yhvh's servant
would die and leave behind no posterity. In that case; zera' can't possibly
mean that Yhvh's servant would see biological seed; but rather, see the
fruits of his labor; which within the context of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah
consists of bearing the sins of many and thus shielding them from the wrath
of God.

Zera' is one of those words that can be either singular or plural, depending
upon the context. Other words like that are deer, sheep, Man, and head (as
in head of livestock). Every kid in a family can be called the parents' zera'
whether there's eight kids or a lone child.

● Gen 3:15c . . He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel.

The Hebrew word translated "he" isn't gender specific. It can mean either
he, she, and/or it. So that Gen 3:15c could be-- and in some translations is
-translated: "It will pound your head, and you will bite its heel". The decision
to use "he" was an arbitrary choice; but seeing as how the Serpent, to my
knowledge, is unable to reproduce itself with biological offspring, I'd
recommend going with "it".

Anyway; from that point onwards the Serpent has made it his mission in life
to prevent Eve's seed from doing the very thing God predicted; eventuating
in Herod's slaughter of Jewish toddlers and Christ's execution.

Who are the Serpent's seed? Liars and Murderers; for starters (John 8:44).
Additional Serpentary seed are people who exist solely to satisfy their
passions and desires (Eph 2:1-3). And people given to rivalry and strife (Jas
3:14-15). Those kinds of seed are seed from the aspect of being products of
the Serpent's handiwork.

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

For many women, the pregnancy stage of motherhood is often characterized
by bloating, illness, nausea, depression, anxiety, insecurity, and irritability.
For them, pregnancy is more like a curse than the intended blessing of Gen
1:28.

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

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

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

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

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

That is probably one of the most hated verses in the whole Bible. Eve's
daughters do not like to be subjugated to and/or dominated by men. It
really goes against their grain; and if the women's suffrage movement that
took place in America's early 1900's were to be thoroughly analyzed, it
would not surprise me that women's right to vote wasn't really an equality
issue: it was a rebellion against male domination.

That rule isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's place in church
too-- all churches.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the
Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the
church." (1Cor 14:33-35)

"Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. I do not
allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain
quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not
Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into
transgression." (1Tim 2:11-15)

How long the Adams lived together sans the imposition of a gender
hierarchy isn't stated; but evidently there was no need for it prior to the tree
incident. But the incident aptly demonstrates that manipulative women can
quickly lead men to ruin in no time at all because it's all too easy for them to
persuade men to behave themselves in ways contrary to their own better
judgment; which reminds me of a really cute line from "My Big Fat Greek
Wedding".

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

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

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

/

WebersHome · Oct 3, 2017

-
Genesis 3:17-20

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

A portion of God's gripe with Adam was that he put a creature's wishes over
and above His own; thus making one of the things that God created a
competitor for humanity's loyalty. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

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

Not only would Man himself be effected by a curse upon the ground, but
every living thing that depends upon the 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. The abundant swarms of life that
God created in the beginning would, at that point, begin to thin out as the
competition for available natural food-stuffs intensified.

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

Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him tending the
garden. But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The word for "toil" is
from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means: worrisome-ness.

Webster's defines worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or inclined
to worry or fret; viz: Man became anxious, insecure, and perhaps somewhat
melancholy. 'Itstsabown is the very same word used in verse 16 to describe
the physical and emotional discomfort that Eve was doomed to endure
during pregnancy.

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

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

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

Apparently Adam was a fruitarian at in the beginning, 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, 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,

Whereas the Adams before had a beautiful productive farm complete with
orchards that required minimal maintenance, they became faced with
stubborn soil that needs plowing and sowing, and weeding. Very few natural
grains exist abundantly in nature. These days; if he wants them in any
sizable amount, Man has to farm.

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

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

Did God have to kill Adam in order for him to stop living? No; all He had to
do was deny Adam access to the tree of life and let nature takes its course;
in other words: it was only a matter of time before Adam simply passed
away of old age.

It's often assumed that Adam was created immortal; but no so. Adam was
created an air-breathing creature. Smother him and he'd die. Hold his head
underwater and he'd die. But as long as Adam supplemented his diet with
nutrients form the tree of life, he'd not die of natural causes.

But what happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did he return
to dust too? No; And that's because Adam wasn't entirely organic. His body
came from the ground but his life came from God. According to Jonah 2:1-6,
human beings survive the death of their bodies, and go to a place called
sheol; which, in Jonah's day, was sited at the roots of the mountains; viz:
the depths of the earth.

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

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 a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body;
ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life
produced with Eve's body is Adam's human life.

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 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
Eve. They just can't believe she's everybody's mother (save for Adam) which
would include Christ too.

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)

/

WebersHome · Oct 4, 2017

-
Genesis 3:21-22

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

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

Modern shirts aren't long enough to provide an adequate covering of Man's
body. Theirs were probably more like a knee or calf-length dress. A shirt
implies that Eve's topless days were over; although that wouldn't necessarily
rule out the possibility that she may have become the Gabrielle "Coco"
Chanel of her day and created some interesting necklines.

The garments were for their sake rather than the Lord's. Undress per se isn't
forbidden in the Bible, nor does God himself feel particularly offended by it.
Exposure is forbidden during religious services like in Ex 20:26 and Ex
28:42; but that's not really for God's sake but rather for the worshippers.
After all, God created Man totally disrobed; and that's the way Man lived for
an unspecified time in the garden until he tasted the fruit and found himself
inhibited with a humanistic sense of propriety.

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

That day, humans learned something about the advantages of leather
goods. Most leather is produced from cattle hides: calfskin, goatskin,
kidskin, sheepskin, and lambskin. Other hides and skins used include those
of the horse, pig, kangaroo, deer, crocodile, alligator, seal, walrus, and of
late; python. Human beings have used animal skins for a variety of practical
purposes since ancient times, and to this good day leather is still a useful
material all around the world. Precisely what species of animal God killed in
order to make Adam his first suit of leathers is unknown.

The point to note is that the clothing man's maker crafted for the Adams
didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the
slightest bit of labor to its construction. God slaughtered the animals,
treated their hides, and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave the
clothing to them for free, out of kindness; and free of charge. I believe God
went to all that trouble because He didn't want anything coming between
himself and Adam. In other words, Adam's felt-shame over undress was a
barrier between him and his creator so God showed him a really good way to
overcome it: a way much superior to Adam's limited experience.

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

The mystery of the pronoun "us" was touched upon back at Gen 1:26.

Man didn't become one of the us, he became as one of the us; in other
words: human life became a race of gods.

"I said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6a)

Man's status as a god is problematic because there is only one true god
(Deut 6:4, John 17:3, 1Cor 8:4-6). Therefore Man is a false god, i.e. a fraud.

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

We could paraphrase that a bit to say "discerning the good and the not so
good" and/or "discerning the best, the adequate, and the worst"

In other words: people have the ability to make choices based upon
information; but alas we too often make choices based upon our feelings
instead of our intellect; i.e. based upon what we want rather than what's
sensible.

Well; gods are supposed to be eternal; but humans die like flies.

"I said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless
you will die like men, and fall like all other princes" (Ps 82:6-7)

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

The Old Testament Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate
infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely;
which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits. In other words: it's not
unusual for something said to be forever in the Old Testament to be subject
to an end; for example the law of the Passover as per Ex 12:1-14. The
Passover is to be observed by pious Jews until such a time as God says not
to; and so far, He hasn't.

The tree of life didn't contain enough nutrients to give Adam eternal life. It
couldn't even give him immortality. But the tree could have given Adam
perpetual youth; but even then, only so long as he supplemented his diet
with regular doses of it; for example: I have an under-active thyroid gland
that if left untreated would eventuate in my untimely death. But so long as I
continue to supplement my diet with a prescribed daily dose of a medication
called levoxyl, I can expect to live to a normal old age.

However; I can't get by on just one dose of levoxyl, nor can I take a lifetime
of doses all at once. Levoxyl has to be taken a little at a time on a daily
basis. What I'm saying is: as long as Adam supplemented his diet with
nutrients from that tree on a regular basis; he wouldn't die of natural
causes; thus he had the potential to remain forever twenty-one. But that
was not to be since God had already decreed that the man must die for
eating the forbidden fruit.

/

Muzungu256 · Oct 4, 2017

good stuff mon i like these infopackages u put up u see.......... fresh perspective

WebersHome · Oct 5, 2017

-
Genesis 3:23-24

● Gen 3:23-24 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of
Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken. He drove the man out,
and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery
ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

This is the Bible's first mention of cherubim. They show up now and again in
the Old Testament upwards of 90 times. Their description as per Ezek 1:1-28
and Ezek 10:1-22 suggests that they may be symbolic visions rather than
realities.

Another classification of celestial beings are the seraphim (e.g. Isa 6:2).

The cherubim and the fiery sword didn't actually guard the tree-- they
guarded the way to the tree. That's a curious situation and strongly suggests
that there is but one route to the tree rather than a variety of routes.

The sword itself almost seems to be a sentient form of life, turning in every
direction, threatening and warning all who dared approach. At night its eerie
glow lit the sky, and in the daytime, passersby observed its eternal flame
burning perpetually like the bush Moses saw in the desert. Brrrr. What a
creepy sight that must have been.

NOTE: Heaven is sometimes depicted as a mountain with many roads
around the base heading towards the top. Well; Christianity accepts only one
of those roads reaches the top; viz: the rest are dead-ends, loops, terraces,
and cul-de-sacs, i.e. no outlets and nowhere to go except back down the
mountain.

Now picture hell as a huge pit, deep and wide, with many roads around the
rim heading towards the bottom. Well; Christianity accepts that every one of
those roads reaches the bottom; viz: there are no dead ends, no loops, no
terraces, and no cul-de-sacs. In other words; people can get to hell any
number of ways; but only one way back to the tree of life.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To
him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is
in the paradise of God." (Rev 2:7)

/

WebersHome · Oct 6, 2017

-
Genesis 4:1

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

There is more to knowledge than just information. Some kinds of knowledge
can't be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by
personal experience. Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's
one thing for a young man to learn things about girls from looking at their
pictures and reading about them in biology books and/or in magazines like
Cosmopolitan, and Maxim; but it's quite another learning experience to
actually cuddle with a girl and sleep with her skin to skin. Throughout the
Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common colloquialism for people
sleeping together.

Genesis records no human intimacy in the garden prior to Man's eviction;
but that doesn't prove none occurred; it just proves that none is mentioned
till the fourth chapter.

● Gen 4:1b . . and she conceived and bore Cain, saying: I have gained
a male child with the help of the Lord.

God wrapped creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and rested after that.
Not because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that time, the
human race was all done too. Everyone since then has just been a
reproduction of Adam.

"It was you who created my consciousness; you fashioned me in my
mother's womb. I praise you, for I am awesomely, wondrously made; your
work is wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from you
when I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the
earth. Your eyes saw my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in your
book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of them." (Ps
139:13-16)

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

"Just as you do not know how the spirit of life passes into the limbs within
the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God,
who causes all things to happen." (Ecc 11:5)

No act of creation takes place when babies are conceived. No, man's
creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely
reproductions of Adam via the blessing of fertility.

Adam received life from God on the sixth day of creation. When God formed
the woman, He didn't breathe the breath of life into her nostrils like He did
Adam. God simply used Adam's already-existing life to energize Eve. And
ever since then, parents have been passing their life onto their children. In
other words: human life-- like bird life, fish life, bug life, reptile life, and
beast life --is a transferable kind of life; passing from one generation on to
the next. It's not a miraculous process; no, it's a perfectly natural process;
and it's a pretty amazing process too.

According to ancient Jewish thought, Eve thought Cain to be a very special
boy.

T. "And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she
conceived, and bare Kain; and she said: I have acquired a man, the Angel of
The Lord." (Targum Jonathan)

Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head.
But alas, Cain was just an ordinary kid; he wasn't the Angel of The Lord.

NOTE: The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't
especially indicate a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and
essentially means a dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who
speaks for another; e.g. a courier and/or an ambassador. The New
Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty much the
same thing.

/

WebersHome · Oct 7, 2017

-
Genesis 4:2

● Gen 4:2a . . She then bore his brother Abel.

Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) and means: emptiness or futility.
Figuratively: something transitory and unsatisfactory. Poor Eve; she's only
had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. Cain was her very
first pregnancy. It was a new, exciting adventure. Well, Abel's birth was no
big deal. He was redundant; just another bun in the oven. The first one is
the best. After that, they're all Same-O, Same-O.

Cain and Abel are very interesting and share a lot in common. In fact, they
share so much in common that their individual personalities must be an
enigma to behavioral scientists.

Neither man came from a large gene pool because there were no
grandparents. Their genealogy stopped abruptly right in their own home with
mom and dad and went back no farther. They both had the same parents,
lived in the same home in the same neighborhood, grew up with the same
customs, ate the same food, associated with the same people, breathed the
same air, survived in the same environment, went to the same church, and
worshipped the same God.

Yet those men were noticeably very different from each other. Abel was an
inspired man (Luke 11:50-51) but Cain, though religious; was not. And he
was violent too. (1John 3:11-12)

Both men were living souls as per Gen 2:7, and both men existed by means
of the breath of life as per the same verse. But souls are not the result of
cookie-cutter manufacturing processes. Souls are individuals with a mind of
their own.

Individuality is one of the unsolved mysteries of life. How does the human
brain's three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue produce self awareness
and a sense of being unique? I don't know; it's very curious.

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

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) or tse'own (tseh
one') which mean: a flock; which Webster's defines as a group of birds or
mammals assembled or herded together. So you can see there that "sheep"
is an arbitrary choice of words. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy
wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than sheep; but I won't argue
the point. Sheep will do.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to
the Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and
raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending
flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

NOTE: The Hebrew language didn't exist in Adam's day; nor would it exist
till some time after the Flood and the tower of Babel. Ancient names given in
Hebrew aren't the native-tongue names of people prior to Babel; but rather:
Hebrew equivalents of those names.

/

This Way To Genesis

Senior Member

Huckleberry

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member