Trekking Genesis

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,

The verb "issues" is in grammatically present tense; indicating whoever wrote Gen
2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet existed. The authorship of Genesis has yet
to be positively established. A verse like 2:10 strongly suggests that the data used
to compile Genesis, was progressively accumulated in hand-me-down journals or in
oral rote, generated by people who lived prior to the final compiler's input.

The Hebrew word for "river" is nahar (naw-hawr') which is another of those
ambiguous Bible words. It can indicate a stream or a sea and/or metaphorically:
prosperity. It was stated previously in Gen 2:6 that the face of the whole ground
was watered by fog; which suggests that the Eden river was either an aquifer or
something similar to the slow-moving water of the Florida everglades.

Gen 2:10b-11 . . and it then divides and becomes four branches. The name of the
first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah where there is
gold,

The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.

The Hebrew word for "Havilah" is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which means circular.
It's not only a place-name but also a person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29)
which may indicate that the land of Havilah was named after an antediluvian
individual who settled in that area.

Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)

Again, the author used a present tense verb. The gold "is" good, not was good--
strongly suggesting the author actually lived in the period he wrote about.

As a money; gold has intrinsic value, whereas fiat currency as a money is worth
little more than the good faith and dependability of the country that issues it. In
other words: the US Government could, if it wished, simply outlaw the currency you
have on hand and in an instant your paper money would be totally worthless. But
gold has never been totally worthless.

Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is easier to mine
than others and some is a whole lot more plentiful. Placer gold for example is
usually in the form of dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and washing. Hard rock
gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock crushing, and refinement in
smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in the form of nuggets.

However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the author's use of the word
"good" might just be saying that its gold is bountiful; as opposed to scarce. Gold
can be found just about everywhere, but concentrations of it exist in only a
relatively few places.

Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various trees. The author
could have been referring to amber; a hard yellowish to brownish translucent fossil
resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making ornamental objects like
beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses used to describe the color of
manna in Num 11:7.

In ancient Egypt lapis lazuli was a favorite stone for amulets and ornaments such as
scarabs; it was also used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Sumerians, Akkadians,
Assyrians, and Babylonians for seals and jewelry. Lapis jewelry has been found at
excavations of the Predynastic Egyptian site Naqada (3300–3100 BC), and
powdered lapis was used as eye shadow by Cleopatra. In ancient Mesopotamia,
lapis artifacts can be found in great abundance, with many notable examples
having been excavated at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (2600-2500 BC).

Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through
the whole land of Cush.

Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with both a region of Arabia
and the present-day land of Ethiopia. But the exact geographic site of the Cush of
antediluvian days is impossible to know. If it's the same, then we can be pretty
sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological events in the distant past
because it is now impossible for any river in Ethiopia to connect in any way at all
with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today's world.

Gen 2:14a . .The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of
Asshur.

According to Assyrian monuments, the Tigris was known to the post Flood ancients
as the Chiddekel, or the Hiddekel. Asshur was located in modern-day Iraq south of
Mosul on the western bank of the Tigris river in between the Great Zab and the
Little Zab rivers.

Gen 2:14b . . And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today headwater not too far from Elazig Turkey;
flowing roughly (very roughly) parallel to each other from out of Turkey, past Syria
and Mesopotamia, and down into modern-day Iraq before joining together and
emptying into the Persian Gulf.

The general picture in Genesis 2 is that of a major watercourse (the Eden River)
feeding an immense aqua system supplying water to a very large geographic area
comprising parts of Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nubia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Oman, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iraq.

It would appear that the Eden River itself head-watered possibly in what the world
today knows as Russia; but it is impossible to tell exactly where it came from
because that region no longer generates a south flowing monster river system such
as the one from Eden described in Genesis 2.

The third and fourth rivers no longer connect to a larger river that elsewhere
branches off and flows to Ethiopia. It's pretty obvious from the author's
geographical descriptions that the world's current topography didn't exist prior to
the Flood. The antediluvian world was shaped quite different than the one we live in
now. The Tigris and Euphrates of today are but remnants of an ancient irrigation
system that at one time made the entire Middle East a very beautiful and fertile
region; but to look at it today; you'd never guess it.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden,
to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree
of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad,
you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.


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


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

Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice light has the
potential to burn your skin and/or cause permanent eye damage.

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

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

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

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

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

Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.

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

In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've stayed
forever 21, but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected with
mortality-- he lost perpetual youth and began to age.

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

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I will make
a fitting helper for him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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"
which is really how tsela' should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the
material taken from Adam included some of his flesh; and seeing as how the life of
the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) then I think it's safe to assume that the flesh
God took from Adam's body to construct the woman contained some of his blood
too.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

A: She was in Adam's body.

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

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

Why wasn't Eve given an opportunity to fit in with the animal kingdom before
introducing her to Adam? Well, I think it's because men can make do with a hound
dog and/or 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.

Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim: Hot diggity dog! Now
I can get lucky! 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 really 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. Married men shackled to a
maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in a cold war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.

Stand By Your Man,
Tammy Wynette and Billy Sherrill
Epic Records, 1968

_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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.

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. The thing to note is that at this point of their existence, they lacked
a sense of propriety.

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

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

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him
from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually, neither was there
anything in his psyche encouraging him to. 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.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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.

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 the all-powerful loving God for not stepping in and preventing
the so-called fall of man. But they need to remember that humanity wasn't created
to be the subject of domestication and animal husbandry-- i.e. beasts --no, people
were created in the image and likeness of God, and given complete dominion over
the entire Earth. In that capacity humanity is at liberty to manage its own affairs as
if it were 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.

God gave humanity the liberty to build itself up and/or tear itself down; and
actually, that's the way many of us prefer it because we want to be our own guiding
lights rather than have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics manage our lives for us
without our consent.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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 embellish the laws of God and make them 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; that much of his statement was true. But it was a half
truth rather than the whole truth. What he didn't tell Eve was that death via the
fruit would come to her by means of Adam eating it rather than her own eating.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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 natural, i.e. human 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.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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 all3
circumstances and possible consequences, viz: prudence.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that
they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves
loincloths.

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

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

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

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

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human
body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1
5, and Eph 2:2.

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


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


A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the
world, it would come via a male's actions just as life and righteousness would later
be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)


FAQ: When does the Serpent do his lethal work on people. . . in the womb or out of
the womb?


A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm guessing that
for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)

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

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


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

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the garden at
the breezy time of day;

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 3:13 . . And Jeshovah 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.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
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.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman,

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


NOTE: I suggest keeping all of the above under your hat lest by blabbing about it
you get yourself 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. Webster's defines worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or
inclined to worry or fret; viz: anxiety, insecurity, and perhaps melancholy.

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


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

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

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

Something else that's notable is that neither the Serpent nor the tree's chemistry,
played a role in Eve's new circumstances. God said "I will make". In other words;
the physical and emotional unpleasantries associated with bearing children came
about via the hand of God.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
206
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband,

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

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

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

And then there's this:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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