+- +-

+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 109
Latest: DrWho42
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10728
Total Topics: 704
Most Online Today: 551
Most Online Ever: 771
(July 30, 2019, 01:13:39 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 541
Total: 542

Author Topic: A Journey Thru Genesis  (Read 3822 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2019, 07:50:58 pm »
.
● 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.

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.


NOTE: 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 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.

● 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.

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 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 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.
_

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2019, 02:00:49 pm »
.
● 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, and 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.

• Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

• Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

• Reckless disregard for the safety of others.

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

• 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 humanity's creator 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 divine 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.
_
Like Like x 1 View List

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2019, 09:16:08 am »
.
● 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 dishonesty 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?

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. 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,

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.

Hence, we have the beginnings of what's known as deceptive ambiguity. In other words; the Serpent's statement can be understood in more ways than one. Without an explanation, Eve was left to her own imagination as to what he meant. But it likely never occurred to her to ask for clarification.

The Serpent was somehow aware that Eve wouldn't drop dead to the floor from eating the forbidden fruit. So that much of his statement was true. However, what he didn't tell Eve was that the fruit would cause her to lose immortality, i.e. she would become mortal, which is a walking death rather than a sudden death.


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. (1Cor 2:4-5)

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.
_
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 11:48:09 am by Olde Tymer »

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2019, 09:03:03 am »
.
● Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

If someone presented you with an opportunity to bring your mind up to the level of God's intelligence, and you didn't know any better, wouldn't you take it? I think so.

The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue. In time their eyes were opened and they became conscious of good and evil (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22) but as upcoming events will reveal, his prediction was a half-truth; viz: their consciousness of good and evil was humanistic rather than divine.

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 cunning 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. She also could've talked the matter over with her husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's instructions early on and left her husband out of it; thus laying the groundwork for the utter ruin of her own posterity.
_
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 09:15:50 am by Olde Tymer »

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2019, 08:50:19 am »
.
● Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating

By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the tree.

● Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes,

Most fruits and vegetables are appealing-- just look at bananas and pears and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and carrots, and radishes, and plums and mangoes and strawberries and whatever. God doubtless made them that way so Man could not only nourish himself, but also enjoy his food; viz: not only eat because he has to, but also because he'd like to.

● Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,

The Hebrew word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal') which essentially means circumspect, i.e. sensible; which Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences, viz: prudence.

People with a high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life while those of us with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide what's best.

Sakal shows up no less than thirteen times in the book of Proverbs alone, and is always depicted as desirable; so it's not like Eve was wanting something that was eo ipso bad for her.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think most husbands would sympathize with Adam. I mean: he was told by a supposedly competent source that the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption. But here's your wife sitting right beside you happily munching away and she's still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a reasonable man supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that?
_
Like Like x 1 View List

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2019, 07:42:20 am »
.
● Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

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

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the couple's new perception of themselves is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's biological father. But Eve was already in existence before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, pass it on to her biologically by means of procreation or by means of his body parts that God used to put Eve together.

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

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power of death the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it worked on Adam and Eve. As soon as he tasted the fruit, they immediately set to work with the fig leaves.


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

A: It was apparently God's wishes that death come into the world via a man acting alone just as righteousness would later be offered to the world by a man acting alone. (Rom 5:12-21)
_
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 10:52:25 am by Olde Tymer »
Like Like x 1 View List

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2019, 07:27:57 am »
.
● 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam attempted to get himself off the hook by accusing God of 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 concept of the perfect companion for a man?"
_

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2019, 09:50:48 am »
.
● Gen 3:13 . . And Yhvh God said to the woman: What is this you have done? The woman replied: The serpent duped me, and I ate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2019, 08:34:51 am »
.
● Gen 3:14c . . On your belly shall you crawl and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life.

Ancient Jews thought maybe the Serpent was originally equipped with feet.

T. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. (Targum Jonathan)

It's probably best to interpret Gen 3:14c as poetic language because I have never seen, nor yet heard of, a species of snake that eats soil for its food. True, snakes crawl on their bellies; but they probably always did; because that's the way they're designed. Some snakes live in trees and others live in water. Those kinds don't spend a whole lot of time on the ground so not all snakes are alike. I really don't think snakes crawl because they were condemned to crawl. Nor was every species of snake condemned; just the one snake in verse 14.

A person who crawls and eats dirt is typically someone held in very low regard; in other words: a worm. And "all the days of your life" is saying that God's low opinion of the Serpent will never be rescinded.

Serpents will eat dirt in the kingdom of God; possibly as a perpetual reminder of Man's first great mistake.

"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent's food shall be earth." (Isa 65:25)

Today, snakes don't eat earth, they eat prey. How serpents will survive on dirt is unclear, unless their digestive system will be changed to that of a night crawler.

Serpents are never portrayed in the Bible as beneficial to Man. They are always of the poisonous variety and a serious threat to Man's health and well being. That will all be different in the kingdom of God. 

"A babe shall play over a viper's hole, and an infant pass his hand over an adder's den. In all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done; for the land shall be filled with devotion to the Lord as water covers the sea. In that day, the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a standard to peoples-- nations shall seek his counsel and his abode shall be honored." (Isa 11:8-10)


NOTE: Targums aren't translations; rather, very old Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew bible. They were authoritative, and spoken aloud in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftarah readings.

Public readings of the scriptures in ancient synagogues were accompanied by commentary in Aramaic because that was the spoken language of most Jews in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era. The normal practice was that after each verse was read from the sacred Torah scroll, an official commentator known as the Turgeman, or Meturgeman, would then recite orally an Aramaic explanation; usually from memory.

Targums were utilized in the synagogues before, during, and after the times of Christ-- being necessary because many of the Jewish people of that day could not understand Hebrew.

The major Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that were revised in Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum has come to light-- Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. The best known Babylonian Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan.

Targums are important as evidence for a history of thought among the Jewish communities in Israel and abroad during Christ's day.
_

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2019, 10:41:38 am »
.
● Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman,

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

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

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

The offspring predicted here is just as much Adam's as Eve's seeing as how she derived her flesh and bone from a tissue sample taken from Adam's body.

It's pretty much agreed by both sides of the aisle-- Catholic and Protestant --that Eve's predicted offspring found its fulfillment in Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The thing to note is: this particular punishment was unexpected; viz: it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit.

Something else that's notable is that neither the Serpent nor the tree's chemistry, played a role in Eve's new circumstances. God said "I will make yada, yada, yada". In other words; the pangs and pains of bearing children came about via divine edict.

There's more.

● Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband,

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

Precisely why God waited till this moment to lay down some moral law is a mystery; but suggests to me that even had they not eaten the forbidden fruit, He would've gotten around to it; after all, in the beginning, Adam and his wife knew nothing of right and wrong.

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

And then there's this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2019, 11:01:22 am »
.
● Gen 3:17a . .To Adam He said: Because you did as your wife said, and ate of the tree about which I commanded you; "You shall not eat of it"

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

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

That was unexpected; it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit.

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 would begin to intensify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did he return to dust too? No; and that's because Adam wasn't entirely organic. His body came from the soil; but according to Gen 2:7, his consciousness came from God. The afterlife disposition of human consciousness is one of life's greatest mysteries. Heck, even the origin of human consciousness is mystery enough for some, let alone where it goes when people pass away.
_
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 10:17:15 am by Olde Tymer »

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2019, 08:32:14 am »
.
● 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 taken from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life traceable to Eve is traceable to Adam.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be linked to a common ancestor; which of course is no surprise to Bible students.
_
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 09:00:37 am by Olde Tymer »

Olde Tymer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2019, 10:03:51 am »
.
● Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". In other words: humanity didn't come from the hand of God as an equal; i.e. though humanity was given the status of divine beings; humans are imitations rather than actual deities-- true gods are impervious to death, humans die like flies. (Ps 82:6-7)

Seeing as how humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then we're safe to conclude that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made itself an autonomous deity setting its own standards of right and wrong.

Unfortunately humanity, as an autonomous deity, isn't God's associate, rather, His competitor; i.e. a rival sheik so to speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOTE: 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.
_
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 07:22:44 am by Olde Tymer »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3435 Views
Last post November 25, 2018, 07:46:19 am
by patrick jane
76 Replies
1665 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 05:52:53 am
by patrick jane
5 Replies
3883 Views
Last post May 22, 2019, 03:24:14 pm
by patrick jane
1 Replies
3847 Views
Last post March 09, 2020, 02:13:33 pm
by patrick jane
0 Replies
728 Views
Last post February 25, 2020, 07:35:46 pm
by Bladerunner

+-Recent Topics

Christianity Today Magazine - April 2020 by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 11:36:38 pm

Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:47:55 pm

Politics Today by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:47:42 pm

Re: Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:47:21 pm

Re: Politics Today by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:47:06 pm

Biblical Theology - Video and Audio Bible Lessons - For Serious Students by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:39:14 pm

CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:38:33 pm

An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 10:35:49 pm

From a Calvinist Perspective by Bladerunner
April 02, 2020, 06:36:26 pm

SALVATION IS A FREE GIFT by Bladerunner
April 02, 2020, 06:27:35 pm

TAMARA MAGDALENE YOUTUBE PRODUCTIONS by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 05:14:54 pm

John MacArthur: Comments by Bladerunner
April 02, 2020, 01:47:03 pm

Black Spring With Autumn Political Commentary by patrick jane
April 02, 2020, 12:15:00 pm

Coronavirus hoax to declare martial law (FEMA) by Firestarter
April 02, 2020, 11:08:19 am

Rwanda genocide, Kagame, the RPF and looting the Congo by Firestarter
April 02, 2020, 10:21:59 am

Two Plans: One Jewish - One Gentile: Comments by Bladerunner
April 02, 2020, 09:06:43 am

John MacArthur by Bladerunner
April 01, 2020, 11:17:41 pm

Two Plans: One Jewish - One Gentile by Bladerunner
April 01, 2020, 11:04:46 pm