Except that it's not
Genesis, Start To Finish
- Thread starter Odë:hgöd
- Start date
Yes, but I didn't see anything that ties modern science to pantheism
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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 in 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.
_
● 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 in 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
.
● 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 shorten longevity and alter human consciousness? Why even
create such a tree in the first place?
REPLY: The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was unfit for human
consumption; but it wasn't necessarily a bad tree. When God finished creating, He
looked over His handiwork on the 6th day and rated it all not just good, but "very"
good.
Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice light has the
potential to burn your skin and/or cause permanent eye damage: some forms of
light can even cause cancer.
I don't know what that tree's purpose in the garden might have been but I'm
confident it was no more intrinsically evil than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening,
rattlesnakes, scorpions, avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes,
cactus needles, tsunamis, the solar wind, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead,
cadmium, and arsenic and hemlock. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all
fit into the natural scheme of things.
Gen 2:15-17 is a favorite among critics because Adam didn't drop dead the very
day 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 his maker's warning to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as he understood death in his own
day rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In
other words: Adam's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather
than spiritual.
As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created in
His own image, viz: a creature blessed with perpetual youth. 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 grasses spout. He saw them grow to maturity, bloom with flowers, and
produce seeds. He watched as they withered, became dry and brittle, and then
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 and fully understood that if he
went ahead and tasted the forbidden fruit that his body would lose its perpetual
youth and end up no more permanent than grass.
In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've remained in
perfect health but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected
with mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to age; a condition easily
remedied by the tree of life but alas, Adam was denied access to it.
Adam was supposed to die on the very day he tasted the forbidden fruit and he did;
only in a natural way-- subtly and not readily observed rather than instantly. The
thing is: the aging process is a lingering, walking death rather than sudden death,
i.e. mortality is slow, but very relentless: like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie
character "The Terminator"-- mortality 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 your body is so broken down that it cannot continue.
"A voice said: Shout! I asked: What should I shout? Shout that people are like the
grass that dies away. Their beauty fades as quickly as the beauty of flowers in a
field. The grass withers, and the flowers fade beneath the breath of The Lord. And
so it is with people. The grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of our
God stands forever." (Isa 40:6-8)
_
● 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 shorten longevity and alter human consciousness? Why even
create such a tree in the first place?
REPLY: The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was unfit for human
consumption; but it wasn't necessarily a bad tree. When God finished creating, He
looked over His handiwork on the 6th day and rated it all not just good, but "very"
good.
Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice light has the
potential to burn your skin and/or cause permanent eye damage: some forms of
light can even cause cancer.
I don't know what that tree's purpose in the garden might have been but I'm
confident it was no more intrinsically evil than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening,
rattlesnakes, scorpions, avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes,
cactus needles, tsunamis, the solar wind, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead,
cadmium, and arsenic and hemlock. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all
fit into the natural scheme of things.
Gen 2:15-17 is a favorite among critics because Adam didn't drop dead the very
day 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 his maker's warning to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as he understood death in his own
day rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In
other words: Adam's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather
than spiritual.
As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created in
His own image, viz: a creature blessed with perpetual youth. 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 grasses spout. He saw them grow to maturity, bloom with flowers, and
produce seeds. He watched as they withered, became dry and brittle, and then
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 and fully understood that if he
went ahead and tasted the forbidden fruit that his body would lose its perpetual
youth and end up no more permanent than grass.
In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've remained in
perfect health but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected
with mortality, i.e. he lost perpetual youth and began to age; a condition easily
remedied by the tree of life but alas, Adam was denied access to it.
Adam was supposed to die on the very day he tasted the forbidden fruit and he did;
only in a natural way-- subtly and not readily observed rather than instantly. The
thing is: the aging process is a lingering, walking death rather than sudden death,
i.e. mortality is slow, but very relentless: like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie
character "The Terminator"-- mortality 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 your body is so broken down that it cannot continue.
"A voice said: Shout! I asked: What should I shout? Shout that people are like the
grass that dies away. Their beauty fades as quickly as the beauty of flowers in a
field. The grass withers, and the flowers fade beneath the breath of The Lord. And
so it is with people. The grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of our
God stands forever." (Isa 40:6-8)
_
The belief that 'god' is in everything and everything is in 'god'
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
The last time I chatted with an avid evolutionist, the explanations of change sounded more and more like planned and designed change. I asked if the creature was actually evolve-thinking since I saw so much thought going into it.
Well yes he said but not like an outside god was doing anything.
Oh no of course I replied, I meant that the god was actually in it—or in each cell. I had found this in a philosophy book which held that evolution was Bhuddism. Then I found out about Huxley and The Perennial Philosophy.
God's always involved whether people realize it or not, right
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
Corr: his expression was the ‘physico-theologians.’
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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 handiwork 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 a word that basically
means a counterpart and/or a mating part, e.g. left and right shoes and socks. The
word for "helper" basically pertains to 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, ergo: strong domineering
women are out of sync with humanity's creator.
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, devotion, and loyalty.
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.
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 2:18 . .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 handiwork 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 a word that basically
means a counterpart and/or a mating part, e.g. left and right shoes and socks. The
word for "helper" basically pertains to 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, ergo: strong domineering
women are out of sync with humanity's creator.
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, devotion, and loyalty.
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.
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.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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 sentient 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.
● 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 most important thing to note in that passage is that Eve wasn't created directly
from the soil as Adam was, viz: Eve couldn't claim herself unrelated to Adam
because he was her daddy; so to speak.
Being as Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body, then her
body's material was basically a reproduction of his. Therefore any and all progeny
produced by Eve's body, whether virgin conceived or naturally 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 their conception.
● 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.
● Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh.
Adam's remark later became a useful expression, e.g. after hearing Jacob's tale; his
uncle Laban concluded that they had quite a bit in common. (Gen 29:14)
Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is precisely
why God made women: to be their husband's buddy. Therefore wives who aren't
their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can only be accepted as
cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality. Married men shackled to a
maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in a perpetual cold war.
The one who designed a man said it is not good for a man to live alone. And if it's
not good for a man to live alone, then it goes without saying that it's not good for a
woman either. If men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women
should be happier with a man. In other words: mankind's designer didn't intend
men and women to function independently of each other. They were created to be
together; as couples.
So Adam saw in Eve a very agreeable 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.
_
● 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 sentient 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.
● 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 most important thing to note in that passage is that Eve wasn't created directly
from the soil as Adam was, viz: Eve couldn't claim herself unrelated to Adam
because he was her daddy; so to speak.
Being as Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body, then her
body's material was basically a reproduction of his. Therefore any and all progeny
produced by Eve's body, whether virgin conceived or naturally 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 their conception.
● 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.
● Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh.
Adam's remark later became a useful expression, e.g. after hearing Jacob's tale; his
uncle Laban concluded that they had quite a bit in common. (Gen 29:14)
Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is precisely
why God made women: to be their husband's buddy. Therefore wives who aren't
their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can only be accepted as
cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality. Married men shackled to a
maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in a perpetual cold war.
The one who designed a man said it is not good for a man to live alone. And if it's
not good for a man to live alone, then it goes without saying that it's not good for a
woman either. If men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women
should be happier with a man. In other words: mankind's designer didn't intend
men and women to function independently of each other. They were created to be
together; as couples.
So Adam saw in Eve a very agreeable 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.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she taken.
Woman is translated from the Hebrew word 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) and 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.
● Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,
Clinging implies insecurity. 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 then can he rely and/or depend upon?
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.
* There is no specific Hebrew word for "wife" in the Bible. The word for wife in the
verse above 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.
● 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 bond is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't
limited to marriage. Obviously then; people indulging in starter marriages have the
wrong idea about what it means to hook up with somebody.
● 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, Adam and his wife weren't
encumbered with inhibitions, nor were they uncomfortably aware of themselves as
objects of the observation of others.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at first
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 anything about decency yet.
_
● Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she taken.
Woman is translated from the Hebrew word 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) and 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.
● Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,
Clinging implies insecurity. 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 then can he rely and/or depend upon?
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.
* There is no specific Hebrew word for "wife" in the Bible. The word for wife in the
verse above 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.
● 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 bond is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't
limited to marriage. Obviously then; people indulging in starter marriages have the
wrong idea about what it means to hook up with somebody.
● 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, Adam and his wife weren't
encumbered with inhibitions, nor were they uncomfortably aware of themselves as
objects of the observation of others.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at first
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 anything about decency yet.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
The incident recorded in the third chapter of Genesis is a bit of a mystery. The
reason being that not only can the creator scan the future as if viewing live
coverage, but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the events
in this chapter were neither unexpected nor inevitable.
● Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which
the Lord God had made.
The Serpent's true identity is none other than the dark spirit being well known to
everyone as the Devil and Satan. (John 8:44 and Rev 20:1-3)
NOTE: We don't think of Jesus as a literal feline because he's called the Lion of the
Tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5) nor do we think of Dan as a literal reptile because he's
depicted as a serpent. (Gen 49:17)
No; Dan wasn't an actual reptile and neither is Jesus an actual feline. Those kinds
of labels tell us things about people rather than describing their physical
characteristics. For example there's a significant political figure in Revelation called
"the beast" who is likely labeled like that because he has the nature of an animal.
Seeing as how serpents are typically always presented in the Bible as a hazard to
human life and safety; then that label befits the Devil very well.
Now the curious thing is: the serpent was not only more cunning than the beasts of
the field but also more cunning than Eve; though not presented to us like that.
Spirit creatures are normally invisible to the naked eye. However, seeing them is
not impossible. For example Gen 32:1-2 and 2Kgs 6:15-17.
It could be that in the beginning, people could see spirit creatures just as easily as
organic creatures. Apparently human eyesight somehow lost a percentage of its
visible spectrum and we today have what might be called a fallen visual acuity due
to being deprived of certain essential nutrients found only in the tree of life. That's
not an unreasonable posit. Common science is well aware that inadequate nutrition
can lead to problems with eye health; and not only our eyes, but also the proper
function of other parts of our bodies too.
● 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 was afraid of neither himself, nor the other creatures, nor the dark, nor
the boogie man. (cf. Gen 4:14)
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 tried selling a
line of high-end vacuum cleaners for a 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.
An innocent who had no experience with evil, the woman would certainly never
suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and truthful. Up to this
point, the woman 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
_
The incident recorded in the third chapter of Genesis is a bit of a mystery. The
reason being that not only can the creator scan the future as if viewing live
coverage, but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the events
in this chapter were neither unexpected nor inevitable.
● Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which
the Lord God had made.
The Serpent's true identity is none other than the dark spirit being well known to
everyone as the Devil and Satan. (John 8:44 and Rev 20:1-3)
NOTE: We don't think of Jesus as a literal feline because he's called the Lion of the
Tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5) nor do we think of Dan as a literal reptile because he's
depicted as a serpent. (Gen 49:17)
No; Dan wasn't an actual reptile and neither is Jesus an actual feline. Those kinds
of labels tell us things about people rather than describing their physical
characteristics. For example there's a significant political figure in Revelation called
"the beast" who is likely labeled like that because he has the nature of an animal.
Seeing as how serpents are typically always presented in the Bible as a hazard to
human life and safety; then that label befits the Devil very well.
Now the curious thing is: the serpent was not only more cunning than the beasts of
the field but also more cunning than Eve; though not presented to us like that.
Spirit creatures are normally invisible to the naked eye. However, seeing them is
not impossible. For example Gen 32:1-2 and 2Kgs 6:15-17.
It could be that in the beginning, people could see spirit creatures just as easily as
organic creatures. Apparently human eyesight somehow lost a percentage of its
visible spectrum and we today have what might be called a fallen visual acuity due
to being deprived of certain essential nutrients found only in the tree of life. That's
not an unreasonable posit. Common science is well aware that inadequate nutrition
can lead to problems with eye health; and not only our eyes, but also the proper
function of other parts of our bodies too.
● 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 was afraid of neither himself, nor the other creatures, nor the dark, nor
the boogie man. (cf. Gen 4:14)
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 tried selling a
line of high-end vacuum cleaners for a 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.
An innocent who had no experience with evil, the woman would certainly never
suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and truthful. Up to this
point, the woman 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
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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 the female?
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 the woman 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 explain 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 forbade Adam eating
the fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)
The woman failed to repeat exactly 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; her 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.
The woman fell prey to a very human weakness: that of not only of interpreting
God, but also of a tendency to embellish His instructions and make them more
cumbersome and more strict than they really are.
● Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,
Having successfully tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions, and
found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to influence
her thinking a bit more.
The Serpent was aware that the forbidden fruit wasn't a direct danger to the
woman; that much of his statement was true. But it was a half-truth rather than
the whole truth. What he didn't tell the woman was that death via the fruit would
come to her indirectly, by means of Adam eating it rather than her own eating.
_
● 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 the female?
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 the woman 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 explain 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 forbade Adam eating
the fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)
The woman failed to repeat exactly 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; her 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.
The woman fell prey to a very human weakness: that of not only of interpreting
God, but also of a tendency to embellish His instructions and make them more
cumbersome and more strict than they really are.
● Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,
Having successfully tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions, and
found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to influence
her thinking a bit more.
The Serpent was aware that the forbidden fruit wasn't a direct danger to the
woman; that much of his statement was true. But it was a half-truth rather than
the whole truth. What he didn't tell the woman was that death via the fruit would
come to her indirectly, by means of Adam eating it rather than her own eating.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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.
Ironically, the woman was already like God in some respects in that she was
created in His image. (Gen 1:26-27)
The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue. In time
the woman's eyes were opened and she obtained an intuitive discernment of good
and evil; and she became like God. (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22)
FAQ: How did the Serpent know that the woman would obtain an intuitive
discernment of good and evil by eating the forbidden fruit?
REPLY: He had the ability to make it happen. But of course the Serpent kept that
part back from the woman and led her to believe that the chemistry of the
forbidden fruit would do the trick.
Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that the woman's creator was not only dishonest,
but was also withholding the tree to keep her in check: much in the way that
modern dictators keep their citizens in line by utilizing illiteracy, control of radio and
television programming, suppressing and/or slanting print media, restricting
contact with foreigners, limiting internet access, policing social networks, and
criminalizing dissent.
In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very same
tree and He didn't want to share its fruit lest the woman become savvy enough to
go out on her own without depending so much upon her 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.
FAQ: Why did God sit on His hands instead of stepping in to prevent this tragedy?
REPLY: Some very difficult theological questions are raised by incidents like this; for
example:
● Job 2:3 . .Then The Lord said to Satan: Have you considered my servant Job?
There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears
God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me
against him to ruin him without any reason.
I think it fair to suggest that if God and Satan colluded together against Job in a
plot to ruin him without cause; then it's likely that God and Satan colluded together
against Adam and his wife in a plot to ruin them without cause, i.e. without a
reason. This is unthinkable, yet we must accept it as a very strong possibility. (cf.
2Sam 24:1 & 1Chon 21:1)
_
● 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.
Ironically, the woman was already like God in some respects in that she was
created in His image. (Gen 1:26-27)
The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue. In time
the woman's eyes were opened and she obtained an intuitive discernment of good
and evil; and she became like God. (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22)
FAQ: How did the Serpent know that the woman would obtain an intuitive
discernment of good and evil by eating the forbidden fruit?
REPLY: He had the ability to make it happen. But of course the Serpent kept that
part back from the woman and led her to believe that the chemistry of the
forbidden fruit would do the trick.
Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that the woman's creator was not only dishonest,
but was also withholding the tree to keep her in check: much in the way that
modern dictators keep their citizens in line by utilizing illiteracy, control of radio and
television programming, suppressing and/or slanting print media, restricting
contact with foreigners, limiting internet access, policing social networks, and
criminalizing dissent.
In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very same
tree and He didn't want to share its fruit lest the woman become savvy enough to
go out on her own without depending so much upon her 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.
FAQ: Why did God sit on His hands instead of stepping in to prevent this tragedy?
REPLY: Some very difficult theological questions are raised by incidents like this; for
example:
● Job 2:3 . .Then The Lord said to Satan: Have you considered my servant Job?
There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears
God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me
against him to ruin him without any reason.
I think it fair to suggest that if God and Satan colluded together against Job in a
plot to ruin him without cause; then it's likely that God and Satan colluded together
against Adam and his wife in a plot to ruin them without cause, i.e. without a
reason. This is unthinkable, yet we must accept it as a very strong possibility. (cf.
2Sam 24:1 & 1Chon 21:1)
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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: he would 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" basically means circumspect, i.e. sensible; which
Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances and possible
consequences, viz: prudence.
Anyway, the woman 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.
* Ironically, the woman'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 the woman was unaffected by the
fruit: she experienced no ill side effects and went right on naked as usual; feeling
no different about it than before.
● Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
The phrase "who was with her" has led some folks to suggest that Adam was
standing right there the whole time observing the entire incident; not saying a
word.
But the phrase could simply mean they were a cohabiting couple at the time, viz:
weren't split up living apart. For example: I've been with my wife 43 years without
interruption though we often go our separate ways on errands and appointments:
vacations too, My wife likes to rendezvous with her sister in the community of
Santa Barbara California once a year for a week, viz: she's been with me all this
time, though not always at my side.
The Serpent is portrayed as a highly intelligent creature (Gen 3:1). Well; for sure
he was intuitively aware of the tried and true tactic "Divide and Conquer" Catching
the woman by herself away from her husband's oversight was a sensible tactic.
The thing is: the Serpent was somehow aware the fruit posed no danger to the
woman; so if he could get her to try it, and she'd see for herself it was safe to eat,
then the Serpent would have the ally he needed to persuade the man to do
something contrary to his better judgment.
But I think Adam was at least cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on his wife 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?
NOTE: 1Tim 2:14 is oftentimes used to allege that Adam wasn't tricked into eating
the fruit. But the trickery in that particular passage is relative to the Serpent. In
other words: Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil, instead, he was made a fool by his
wife.
_
● 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: he would 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" basically means circumspect, i.e. sensible; which
Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances and possible
consequences, viz: prudence.
Anyway, the woman 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.
* Ironically, the woman'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 the woman was unaffected by the
fruit: she experienced no ill side effects and went right on naked as usual; feeling
no different about it than before.
● Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
The phrase "who was with her" has led some folks to suggest that Adam was
standing right there the whole time observing the entire incident; not saying a
word.
But the phrase could simply mean they were a cohabiting couple at the time, viz:
weren't split up living apart. For example: I've been with my wife 43 years without
interruption though we often go our separate ways on errands and appointments:
vacations too, My wife likes to rendezvous with her sister in the community of
Santa Barbara California once a year for a week, viz: she's been with me all this
time, though not always at my side.
The Serpent is portrayed as a highly intelligent creature (Gen 3:1). Well; for sure
he was intuitively aware of the tried and true tactic "Divide and Conquer" Catching
the woman by herself away from her husband's oversight was a sensible tactic.
The thing is: the Serpent was somehow aware the fruit posed no danger to the
woman; so if he could get her to try it, and she'd see for herself it was safe to eat,
then the Serpent would have the ally he needed to persuade the man to do
something contrary to his better judgment.
But I think Adam was at least cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on his wife 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?
NOTE: 1Tim 2:14 is oftentimes used to allege that Adam wasn't tricked into eating
the fruit. But the trickery in that particular passage is relative to the Serpent. In
other words: Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil, instead, he was made a fool by his
wife.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 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 his youth 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.
NOTE: The so-called fallen nature is believed to be propagated by parents. Oh?
Then whence did Eve obtain it?
She was already alive and fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body
prior to the forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
already in existence; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the fallen nature to
her by means of reproduction.
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to
do with the first couple's altered moral perception; but now I seriously doubt it
because Eve was the first to eat the fruit, and when she did, nothing happened. She
remained just as comfortable in the buff as before. It wasn't till Adam tasted the
fruit that she began to feel exposed; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is
far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.
FAQ: If Eve's altered moral perception wasn't due to the fruit, nor due to Adam's
body, then what?
REPLY: Mr. Serpent is the logical source, 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 takes effect.
Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both immediately set to work
cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?
REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the
world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of the
womb?
REPLY: Adam and his wife 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 & 58:3)
* I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting blame away
from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to believe parents
propagate the fallen nature; when it's been the Serpent all along. Jesus' statement:
"You are of your father the Devil" wasn't idle slander; rather, it was 100% fact.
(John 8:44)
How he has managed to deceive so many people for so long a time I don't know,
but what's really ironic about it is that there are people behind pulpits, and chairing
whole Sunday school departments, helping him do it as unsuspecting accomplices;
which goes to show that if an idea is repeated often enough, widely enough, and
loud enough by people held in high enough esteem; pretty soon it's accepted by the
masses as fact without thought or question. (the Asch Conformity Phenomenon)
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong;
Gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
(Thomas Paine)
_
● 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 his youth 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.
NOTE: The so-called fallen nature is believed to be propagated by parents. Oh?
Then whence did Eve obtain it?
She was already alive and fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body
prior to the forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
already in existence; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the fallen nature to
her by means of reproduction.
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to
do with the first couple's altered moral perception; but now I seriously doubt it
because Eve was the first to eat the fruit, and when she did, nothing happened. She
remained just as comfortable in the buff as before. It wasn't till Adam tasted the
fruit that she began to feel exposed; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is
far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.
FAQ: If Eve's altered moral perception wasn't due to the fruit, nor due to Adam's
body, then what?
REPLY: Mr. Serpent is the logical source, 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 takes effect.
Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both immediately set to work
cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?
REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the
world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of the
womb?
REPLY: Adam and his wife 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 & 58:3)
* I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting blame away
from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to believe parents
propagate the fallen nature; when it's been the Serpent all along. Jesus' statement:
"You are of your father the Devil" wasn't idle slander; rather, it was 100% fact.
(John 8:44)
How he has managed to deceive so many people for so long a time I don't know,
but what's really ironic about it is that there are people behind pulpits, and chairing
whole Sunday school departments, helping him do it as unsuspecting accomplices;
which goes to show that if an idea is repeated often enough, widely enough, and
loud enough by people held in high enough esteem; pretty soon it's accepted by the
masses as fact without thought or question. (the Asch Conformity Phenomenon)
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong;
Gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
(Thomas Paine)
_
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
It looks like the pantheism discussion ended there, but it has not ended. I find the artificial or dishonest inclusion of a higher intelligent creative force all the time in evolution, and gave an example above of recent live interaction with a man from Europe met on Christian Post, a magazine. Every greeting from his was an emotional affront: what are you afraid of? why are you afraid of evolution? He was schooled to do so; and to not answer questions rationally.
If you read Schaeffer on pantheism in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, you will find that this is very intentional. In fact, he coined the term 'paneverythingism' because of the destruction of rational categories of thought and discussion. This is in the first chapter on existence, 'The Problem of Being.'
Science versus religion or pantheism versus Christianity?
As long as we allow our opposition to frame the conflict as science versus religion, we will always be on the defensive
www.christianpost.com
Similar threads
