Genesis, Start To Finish

[EarlyActs]

The article's first reference is to the theologian Brow who lived in India 2 decades:

Brow benefited from living in India for 20 years as an army officer, student, and teacher, giving him the opportunity to study Hinduism and other Eastern religions firsthand. For example, he identified as a kind of pantheism denial of the supernatural and finding meaning in evolutionary progress as the principle behind Nature.

I would say the article is quite on topic. To say it is not about pantheism is ridiculous or uninformed or unintelligent or dishonest.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 not only indicates 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 The Lord God among the trees
of the garden. The Lord 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; only partially. But in his revised opinion; even that
degree of undress lacked adequate propriety.

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; Adam just felt
indecent. In other words; upon tasting the forbidden fruit, Adam's intuition began
misguiding him, i.e. his moral compass went awry.

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

( It appears Adam attempted to get himself off the hook by accusing God of
entrapment. )

Recriminations are a natural response to criticism; but all-in-all they are quite
futile. Recriminations do nothing to mitigate one's own faults nor excuse one's
conduct. The honorable thing to do when caught in a fault is to man-up and admit it
without pulling others down with us, viz: though the woman wasn't innocent in this
event, she wasn't the one on the carpet at this point.

Adam needed to answer for himself rather than crucify his wife to protect himself.
And I do wish he had answered for himself because I am very curious to know what
persuaded him to follow his wife's lead instead of standing up to her.

● Gen 3:13 . . And The Lord God said to the woman: What is this you have done?
The woman replied: The serpent duped me, and I ate.

That's true; the woman was turned by the Serpent's clever sophistry (1Tim 2:14).
However, she side-stepped the real issue, to wit: The woman was fully informed
that the fruit was forbidden and unsafe for her husband; yet she convinced him to
try it anyway. I would like to hear her explanation for that.

NOTE: We'll discover later in Genesis that the person speaking with Adam and his
wife wasn't the actual supreme being though he's identified as the Lord God, but
instead a rather mysterious agent whose name is his master's, and authorized to
not only speak for the supreme being, but also to speak as the supreme being and
to be revered as the supreme being. Christians know this mysterious agent as The
Word; spoken of in the first chapter of John's gospel.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

God interrogated the people and gave them 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 people against Him; similar like when it later moved against
Job.

Now the scary thing is: when Satan sought to turn Job against God; he was granted
permission to try. (Job 1:12 & Job 2:6, cf. Luke 22:31)

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 feed 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 is3
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 translated "curse" basically 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 God has those
kinds of feelings for someone; they are really in trouble.

The wording of the curse implies that no matter how hard God should ever slam the
cattle and the wild beasts with misfortune; it would never be as severe as that He
pronounced on the Serpent. In other words, the Serpent is now lower in God's
estimation than the lowest thing on the face of the earth.

● 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.

NOTE: We might correctly conclude that the Serpent was from then on denied
access to God but no, he visits with God in the book of Job which for sure was an
episode in the Bible many years after this incident with Adam and Eve. And the
Serpent isn't totally grounded; for example he was able to carry Jesus to the tippy
top of the Temple (Matt 4:5) and from thence to a mountain. (Matt 4:8)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Re: Targum Jonathan

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. The Targum of Onkelos is commonly
included along with a traditional Torah scroll in synagogues.

Targums are valuable as evidence for a history of thought among the Jewish
communities in Israel and abroad during Christ's day along with the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament-- a.k.a. LXX) --which is an important work quoted
numerous times in the New Testament.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

The Hebrew word translated "offspring" basically refers to posterity and/or
progeny; but not always the biological kind; e.g. 1Sam 2:12 where Eli's two
degenerate boys Hophni and Phinehas are described as Belial's kin.

● Gen 3:15b . . Hers will pound your head, and yours will bite his heel.

Gen 3:15 is considered by many as the earliest of all predictions related to the
Devil's ruin. (cf. Heb 2:14)

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

The Hebrew word for "pangs" basically means worrisome-ness. Webster's defines
worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or inclined to worry or fret. We could
probably add anxiety and melancholy to that list.

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 and apparently due to 1) listening to the Serpent, and 2)
leading her husband to disobey God.

There's more.

● 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.

The Hebrew word translated "desire" shows up so infrequently in the Bible that it's
difficult to get a good feel for it. In point of fact, other than here in Genesis, the
only other places it's used is Gen 4:7 and Song 7:10.

I'm thinking the Hebrew word implies allure. In other words; Eve could be just as
immodest, and just as provocative in private with her husband all she wanted; but
not in public for the eyes of other men.

That rule can be a bit frustrating for beautiful women filled out in all the right places
because they typically yearn for their goods to be admired; everywhere by
everybody: and the more revealing, and the more public, the better.

Well; I recommend that they satisfy that yearning while still young and
uncommitted because marriage is a possessive kind of relationship wherein the
partners' physical charms should be considered off the shelf rather than remaining
on display for others to examine.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

That is probably one of the most hated verses in the book of Genesis and has given
cause for many to accuse the Bible of sexism; which assumes that an all-male
power structure is wrong.

Eve's daughters do not like to be subjugated, 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 supremacy; 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;
and it's universal rather than pertaining to any one particular religion because at
that point in time, there were no religions of any kind anywhere on earth.

My guess is that the primary 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 herself tasting the fruit, things may
have turned out quite differently.

* I would imagine that in the beginning, Eve was perfectly content at her husband's
side in a support role as God intended. But the very core of their being was effected
by the forbidden fruit incident; and no doubt afterwards Eve became a bit defiant.
Along with that, Mr. Adam maybe became a bit too demanding. Thus the stage
was set for a perpetual war between men and women that continues to this day.

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

This particular curse isn't a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit. It's directly
relative to Adam discarding God's explicit instructions and yielding to his wife's
persuasion. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between pleasing women or
pleasing God; men all too often sell their souls to the women. (cf. Luke 14:26)

Not only would Man himself be effected by a curse upon the ground, but every
living thing that depends upon the ground for its survival would be effected too;
from lowly nematodes and earthworms right on up to the top of the food chain. The
whole animal world, and all the seed-bearing plant life too, would suffer collateral
damages for Adam's mistake.

God somehow manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now no longer produces as
well as it did in the beginning. Seeing as how He invented soil's fertility in the first
place, then it likely wasn't too difficult for Him to alter it.

Unfortunately the abundant swarms of life that God created in the beginning would,
at that point, begin to thin out as the competition for available natural food stuffs
would begin to intensify.

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

Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him tending the garden.
But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The Hebrew word translated "toil"
means the same as it did in Gen 3:16.

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

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him tending the garden.
But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The Hebrew word translated "toil"
means the same as it did in Gen 3:16.

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently Adam was a fruitarian at first, and then his diet later expanded to
include other kinds of vegetation. However, I don't think Man is supposed to graze
on pasture like buffalo or deer and elk. Many of the grasses God intended for him to
eat fall into the food group we call cereals; which are raised primarily for their
grain; e.g. corn, beans, wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rice; et al.

In their whole grain natural form, cereals are a rich source of vitamins, minerals,
carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. After refinement, grains are pretty much
good for nothing but carbs unless they're fortified with artificial supplements. There
was a time when cereals were genuinely a staff of life; but modern industrial
farming methods have made that no longer true.

NOTE: The Hebrew word translated "grasses" also includes shoots, i.e. sprouts. In
point of fact, some plants are better eaten as sprouts rather than adults. For
example asparagus and cattails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

According to the Bible, humanity wasn't created in swarms and droves like the
other creatures; instead it was created in its entirety via a singular, solo, male
specimen. Every human being since, including the first woman became, and will
become, from the constitutional elements of that one lone male.

"He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth"
(Acts 17:26)

The word "nations" is translated from a Greek word from whence was derived the
English word "ethnic" --defined by Webster's as: of, or relating to, large groups of
people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or
cultural origin or background.

Everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human
being who ever was; every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every
creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in
love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher
of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every
saint and sinner in the history of our species; is related to Eve."
(Adapted from Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot)

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

The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces human
life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what
their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be linked to a
common human ancestor.

FAQ: Could that be Lucy, the 3.2 million years-old fossilized female remains found
in Ethiopia back in 1974?

REPLY: Lucy wasn't human, rather, she was a human-like hominid, i.e. an ancient
creature similar to humans but not the same.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

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

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

The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified; the Hebrew words just
indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the shoulder.

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

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

We should note that God wasn't indifferent to the Adams' situation. Their feelings of
disgrace in the nude was a barrier between themselves and their maker, so God
showed them a really good way to overcome it: a way that not only improved the
quality of their association with God; but also greatly enhanced their limited
survival skills.

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

They'd eventually have to know how to make a knife and start a fire; I suspect God
showed them how to do that too.

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

FAQ: Was the first couple totally ignorant of good and evil prior to the incident with
the forbidden fruit?

REPLY: From what little information we're given, it appears the Adams came into
existence needing to be trained by a competent mentor. In their case, the mentor
would've been God had not the Serpent succeeded in convincing Eve she could do
just as well without Him.

Well; it looks to me that the forbidden fruit incident caused the Adams to become
somewhat independent, viz: self confident enough to believe themselves capable of
defining moral values for themselves that would be just as good as their maker's
moral values.

But the book of Proverbs assures us that the scope of good and evil is very broad
and goes beyond moral values. There are also values related to wisdom and
foolishness which everybody needs to be taught by a competent source rather than
figure out for themselves. If the book of Judges teaches us anything at all it's that
doing what seems right in one's own eyes leads to decadence.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

The Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity. Normally it
just means indefinitely, i.e. having no exact limits. Basically: the tree would've
cured Adam's mortality and restored him to perfect health.

FAQ: Supposing Adam had eaten from the tree of life prior to eating from the other
tree. Would the good tree protect him from death?

REPLY: The tree of life doesn't work like a vaccine. According to Rev 22:1-2 it's
more like a remedy.

FAQ: Is immortality the same as eternal life?

REPLY: Immortality makes people immune to the aging process. But although
immortality won't let people die of old age, it doesn't protect them from death by
other means, e.g. violence, poison, falls, starvation, dehydration, bleeding out,
decapitation, blunt force trauma, bullets, suffocation, crushing, etc.

On the other hand, eternal life is superior to immortality in that it protects people
from every cause of death one can possibly imagine. Were that not true, it would
be possible to assassinate God.

In a nutshell: immortality pertains to the nature of one's body, whereas eternal life
pertains to the nature of one's existence; for example:

● 1John 1:2 . .The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim
to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Anyway: people tend to take advantage of medicine in order to continue their bad
habits. For example; treatments for STDs enable immoral folk to continue their
swinging life style with little fear of permanent consequences. The same can be said
for folk with high cholesterol numbers. Statins make it possible for them to keep on
eating foods that are normally unsuitable for them.

Had Adam been allowed unlimited access to the tree of life, he and his wife
would've no doubt routinely included fruit from the forbidden tree in their diets
because its detrimental effects on their health could've been easily reversed seeing
as according to Rev 22:1-2, the tree is useful for treating whatever ails you.

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

It would seem that Man's maker doesn't want us to forget our origin-- why else
would it be mentioned relative to Adam's future as a farmer?

The sword spoken of in that passage must be very unique because herein is the
only place in the entire Bible where it's mentioned.

The east side of the garden faced towards sunrise; which may, or may not, be
significant in some way; for example when Christ returns, he'll approach from the
east (Mal 4:2, Rev 22:16) and also make the tree of life available again. (Rev 2:7,
Rev 22:14)

I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its flaming
sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people could go and see it
for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it. But for some reason,
there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to that area.

Well; were that cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in our day, I
should think it would draw more people to it than even Mecca because it would
definitely be a wonder to behold, but I suspect back then people were terrified of it.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

Throughout the Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common idiom for people
sleeping together.

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

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

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

God officially terminated His creation endeavor on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and
rested after that. Not because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that
time, the human race was all done too.

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

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

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

Acts of creation don't take place when babies are conceived. No, everybody's
creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely reproductions
of Adam via the blessing of fertility.

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

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

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

Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head. But alas,
Cain was just an ordinary kid.

NOTE: The Hebrew word translated "angel" doesn't especially indicate a celestial
being. The word is a bit ambiguous and essentially means a dispatched deputy or a
messenger; viz: someone who speaks for, and/or represents, another; i.e. an
ambassador and/or someone selected by God for a special purpose. The New
Testament equivalent means pretty much the same thing.
_

 

[3 Resurrections]

The Hebrew word translated "desire" shows up so infrequently in the Bible that it's
difficult to get a good feel for it. In point of fact, other than here in Genesis, the
only other places it's used is Gen 4:7 and Song 7:10.

I'm thinking the Hebrew word implies allure. In other words; Eve could be just as
immodest, and just as provocative in private with her husband all she wanted; but
not in public for the eyes of other men.

The word "desire" is not exactly the sense which this passage was meant to portray. Sexual overtones are not even intended in this context. The root word "epistrepho" denotes "turning" in the LXX; the same kind of "turning" or deferment which Abel would do with regard to the first-born Cain in Genesis 4:7, if Cain had not committed the sin of murdering his brother.

Fallen womankind in fear would tend to defer to the overpowering tendencies of the male species, rather than being able to stand on equal footing as God had created the pair originally to have joint dominion over the earth. The fallen male of the species would take advantage of that fear, and tend to rule oppressively over the female of the species.

This "rule" of men over women and women's fearful "turning" of deferment to men instead of to their Creator was not God's "divine commandment" dictating how He desired fallen humanity to operate. It was God's sad commentary describing the unfortunate, corrupted state of relations between the genders as a result of their disobedience and fall into sin. Any efforts to restore that original joint dominion of man and woman over the planet are to be encouraged, just as it is a laudable thing for the medical community to relieve pain and sickness to forestall the death process as long as possible.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

The Hebrew word translated "Abel" basically means emptiness, futility, and/or
lacking permanent satisfaction. (cf. Ecc 1:2)

Poor Eve; she's only had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. But
you know; in her day, women didn't have access to all the baby supplies, clothing,
conveyances, and conveniences that modern women in industrial nations have
today. Eve's situation and its conditions, were primitive, viz: pretty much third
world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" basically means a flock; defined by Webster's
as a group of birds or mammals assembled or herded together. Abel could just as
easily have been a cowboy wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than
sheep. In point of fact, the Hebrew word for Abraham's "lamb" in the 22nd chapter
of Genesis is ambiguous too. It can mean either sheep or goats. Sometimes
translators have to make arbitrary decisions which, at times, can be misleading. But
we won't argue the point. Sheep will do.

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

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

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 4:3-4a . . It came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering
to The Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.

It's evident from Heb 11:4 that what's taking place here was a legitimate part of a
God-given religion.

It's commonly assumed that Abel's offering was slain; but there isn't enough
evidence in this section to support it. Noah's offerings were obviously slain because
they're listed as burnt on an altar (Gen 8:20). But Abel's offering is not said to end
up the same way.

FAQ: How did Abel get the fat out of his animal without killing it?

OBJECTION: The Hebrew word for "fat" is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean fleshy
material, and it can also refer to prosperity, abundance, and/or the best of the
best; for example:

"Take your father and your households and come to me, and I will give you the
best of the land of Egypt and you shall eat the fat of the land." (Gen 45:18)

This all tells me that Abel not only offered an animal from among his blue ribbon
stock, but he picked out the choicest one of them all.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices for sin.
The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to
apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial
offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- essentially gifts and/or tributes
rather than atonements --it would be unwise to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or
burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings go by the name of 'olah (o
law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of
the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things
before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the
appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal
husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was appropriate.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible
men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them that way.

This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The
brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for
many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point, apparently both men
were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his
gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain
and his offering he did not look with favor.

Regardless of whether their offerings were correct, the first thing The Lord did was
look upon the men themselves. He looked with favor upon Abel but not with favor
upon Cain. In other words; Abel was the kind of man whom God approves whereas
Cain was the kind of man whom God disapproves

● Gen 4:5b . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell.

Cain was a whole lot worse than distressed. He was blazing mad. The Hebrew word
basically means to blaze up, i.e. to get hot under the collar. Cain is actually in a
passionate rage over this and certainly in no mood for a lecture.

● Gen 4:6 . . And The Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your
face fallen?

God made a sincere effort to talk things over with Cain and resolve their
differences; but Cain didn't respond; he was too busy sulking in a black pout.

● Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain believed in the existence of a supreme being; that was good, and his ritual
was timely; that was good too. But Cain's piety was flawed, i.e. his personal
conduct was didn't satisfy God's expectations, ergo: his ways tainted the offering
and made it unacceptable. (cf. 1Pet 1:18-19 where it's implied that Christ's blood is
an acceptable offering because his ways were acceptable.)

FAQ: How could Cain possibly know God's requirements without a written code to
inform him?

REPLY: Luke 11:49-51 says that Cain's kid brother Abel was a prophet; so Cain at
least had a verbal source, which is adequate enough when it's coming from an
inspired man.

Cain's situation is well illustrated at Isa 1:11-20. Moses' people were offering all the
covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing all the God
given feasts and holy days. He rejected all of it, even though He himself required it,
because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.

"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah." (Prv 15:8)

FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

REPLY: Well, my first guess would be bad blood between him and his younger
sibling. (Matt 5:23-24)

And his attitude was deplorable; Cain was insolent and rude; even to his maker.
(Gen 4:9)

● Gen 4:7b . . But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door;

This is the very first instance in the Bible of the word "sin". The Hebrew word
basically means an offense; as in repeat offender. In other words; not just an
occasional slip-up, but a life style.

● Gen 4:7c . . it desires to have you, but you must master it.

This is the first mention of self control in the Bible. In other words: God created
humanity with the capability to choose bad ways for itself; but that's only half the
story. God also created humanity with the capability to choose good ways for itself;
so He wasn't requiring something impossible from Cain like touching his right elbow
with the thumb of his right hand.

* Christians are not exempt from self control.

"Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not
offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer
yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer
the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness." (Rom 6:12-13)

"If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not
live by the truth." (1John 1:6)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
NOTE: I suspect Cain wasn't always a jerk but started out just as pious as his kid
brother.

For example: one of my brothers and I were only eleven months apart. We were
born of the same mother and father, grew up in the same home, ate the same
foods, had the same friends, were equally educated and equally catechized; and
while still in elementary school, my brother was an altar boy. But as we grew older,
my brother became strange.

During an evening service in church back in the 1950s, the priest instructed
everyone to stand and promise God we would do our best to live a good life. Well;
my brother stood, but didn't promise. Later I asked him why? He replied: There's
things I want to do.

I was deeply disturbed, and totally mystified, by the transformation that came over
my brother. But in time, the differences in our attitudes helped me in my thinking
about the differences between Cain and Abel & Esau and Jacob.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 4:8a . . Now Cain talked with Abel his brother;

Cain probably complained to his brother that God was unfair. But the poor man
couldn't have picked a worse sounding board because Abel was a prophet (Luke
11:50-51). In Cain's dispute with the Lord, Abel no doubt took God's side in it. That
was too much. There's no way a man like Cain was going to take a lecture from his
own kid brother. Abel's popularity with God was bad enough, but preaching would
only make it worse and add insult to injury.

● Gen 4:8b . . and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and
killed him.

Whether or not Cain premeditated his brother's death that day is difficult to tell.
The Hebrew word translated "killed" means to smite with deadly intent. So the
attack on his kid brother, whether premeditated or not, was definitely meant to end
Abel's life rather than to just rough him up and teach him a lesson.

NOTE: According to 1John 3:12, Cain's motive was primarily envy; roughly defined
as painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another. In other
words; Cain had a serious problem with sibling rivalry.

How Cain planned to explain Abel's death to his parents isn't stated. He couldn't
very well blame it on a carnivorous predator since man and beast were on friendly
terms prior to the Flood. It's my guess he set up the crime scene to make it look
like an accident but then too, in light of verse 10, Cain may have buried Able; that
way he'd be reported as a missing person instead of possibly murdered.

● Gen 4:9 . . The Lord said to Cain: Where is your brother Abel? And he said: I
don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?

This religious man's reaction to the object of his worship is just as unexpected as
the murder he'd just committed. Cain worshipped the true God, and his rituals were
correct and timely; yet Cain was insolent and responded to his maker's inquiry with
a lie and a sarcastic rejoinder. It's not too difficult to appreciate God's refusal of this
man's recent offering.

● Gen 4:10 . .Then He said: What have you done? Hark, your brother's blood cries
out to me from the ground!

Whether or not human blood actually has an audible voice isn't nearly important as
to what it might be saying. And in this case with Cain, it certainly couldn't be good.

● Gen 4:11-12 . .Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground which
opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. If you till the soil,
it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer
on earth.

Ceaseless wandering was an inevitable consequence of the inability to raise an
adequate amount of your own food in that day and age. Nobody was eating meat
yet, so the soil was pretty much it as far as nourishment went.

Cain went on to become a very hungry, very overworked man. Wherever he tried to
farm, the ground would respond in such a way as to act infertile. The curse was
leveled right at his diet and the source of his food. Up till now, Cain had been a
successful. But no amount of agricultural wisdom would ever restore his once green
thumb. Cain had crossed over a line and there was no going back.

Since Cain could no longer sustain himself by farming, it would be difficult to settle
down and build himself a home; so he was forced to become migratory and forage
for seasonal foods.

Though the Bible doesn't say; it would seem to me a reasonable assumption that
the curse upon Cain extended to his posterity (cf. Num 14:18).

Up ahead we'll see that they became renowned as an industrial society rather than
agrarian. As time went by, and the Adams family multiplied and spread out; Cain's
community no doubt traded with them using income from the sale of manufactured
goods to barter for the foods that they themselves were unable to grow.
Dependence upon commercial food may not be ideal; but it's certainly better than
going hungry.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 4:13 . . Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!

Cain's punishment was relatively lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is that fair?

FAQ: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why didn't God report
Cain's deed to Adam to have his son stand trial for murder?

REPLY: The Bible's retribution for murder is capital punishment; and that comes out
relatively early in God's communications with Man at Gen 9:5-6. However; Adam
couldn't prosecute Cain for murder because it wasn't illegal in his day. In other
words; the codified laws of God aren't retroactive. (Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom
5:13, and Gal 3:17)

FAQ: Well then, why didn't God step in and prosecute Cain for murder?

REPLY: It's important to note that Gen 9:5-6 doesn't apply in God's association with
Man, rather; in Man's association with Man. And on top of that; God's association
with Man has never been based solely upon strict rules and regulations because
Christ was reckoned crucified prior to the cosmos. (1Pet 1:18-21 & Rev 13:8) In
other words: the cross allowed God quite a bit of latitude in His association with
Cain.

● Gen 4:14b . . anyone who meets me may kill me!

Cain's natural sense of right and wrong knew that the only way to balance the
scales of justice for taking his kid brother's life was to forfeit his own. However, up
to that point in God's association with humanity, He had not yet given any official
instructions related to criminal justice. So then, were somebody to go after Cain
and execute him for the crime of murder, they would be taking the law into their
own hands; which is a very serious thing to do.

● Gen 4:15b . . The Lord said to him: I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold
vengeance shall be taken on him. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone
who met him should kill him.

The characteristics of that mark are currently unknown but the mark was clear
enough to anyone who saw it that God would strongly disapprove of their taking
Cain's life in retribution for his brother's even though "eye for an eye" is the right
thing to do-- but as yet it wasn't the lawful thing to do.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 4:16a . . Cain left the presence of The Lord

Cain's departure wasn't a forced eviction as had been the Adams' departure from
the garden. And even though the Adams were driven from the garden, they weren't
driven from God. The family kept that connection and brought up their boys to keep
it too.

Cain's self-imposed exile has the aura of a dreadful finality. He renounced God, and
his native religion, and was content to forego its privileges so that he might not be
under its control. He forsook not only his kin but also their worship, and cast off all
pretenses to the fear of God-- apparently putting out of his mind God's statement:
"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?"

Gen 4:16a is a terrible epitaph upon the tombstone of Cain's life, and you can
almost feel the concussion of a dreadful thud as the mighty doors of perdition close
solidly behind him; sealing his passage into permanent darkness.

Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Because that would be like
throwing good money after bad. Sadly, there are people for whom it can be said:
That was the last straw.

Of all the things that Cain had done up to this point, walking out on God was his
worst mistake. Yes, he would have to scrounge for food; but that was just a bump
in the road; not the end of the road. People need to think that over. No matter how
harsh your circumstances are, and no matter what life has thrown in your face, loss
of contact with your maker is much worse. It is wise to stay in touch with God even
if your life is a train wreck and God seems oblivious to your circumstances.

"The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast
love. He will not contend forever, or nurse His anger for all time . . As a father has
compassion for his children, so The Lord has compassion for those who fear Him.
For He knows how we are formed; He is mindful that we are dust." (Ps 103:8-14)

● Gen 4:16b . . and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

The Hebrew word for "Nod" means wandering, vagrancy or exile. Precisely how Nod
got its name, or where it was located is unknown; and this is the only place in the
entire Old Testament where a word for Nod is found so we can't compare it with
other uses.
_

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

A topic on Genesis seems like a good idea, but...

It's a bit of an echo chamber in here, eh?

ECHO!