Total Genesis

[Olde Tymer]

.
● Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,

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

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

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

The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
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)
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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-- 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 2:23b . .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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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 are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that verse
comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. What makes an ishshah
somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So Eve became Adam's woman;
and Adam of course became Eve's man.

● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
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
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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, Jas 3:9)

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 consider it as a very strong possibility. (cf.
2Sam 24:1 & 1Chon 21:1)

NOTE: Job's wife participated in Satan's attempt to destroy Job; but where Adam's
wife succeeded, Job's wife failed.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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)
_

 

[Complete]

NOTE:

@Olde Tymer
According to Matt 10:28, the body and the soul are perishable. However;
though the body is perishable by any means, the soul is perishable only by divine
means; i.e. the deaths of body and soul aren't necessarily simultaneous, viz: the
soul lives on until such a time as God decides to give it either a thumb up or a
thumb down.

'And fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul: (G5580- psuche)
but rather fear Him
Which is able to destroy
both soul and body in hell.'
(Mat 10:28)

Hello @Olde Tymer,

In Genesis 2:7 we are told:- 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' and in Ecclesiastes 12:7:- 'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.'

The soul consists of a Body, into which the breath of life has been breathed, It is a living being. When the breath of life goes back to God Who gave it, at death, then man ceases to be a living soul. Yet though lifeless, it is not destroyed, for only God can destroy it, ultimately, by denying it resurrection life, and leaving it in the grave (i.e., hell - or, the place of the dead).

'If a man die, shall he live again?
all the days of my appointed time will I wait,
till my change come.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee:
thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.'
(Job 14:14-15)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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 is
beyond hope. The scary part is: the Serpent is not only doomed, but busy making
every effort to take as many people down with it as possible-- like a disgruntled
postal worker coming in one day and cutting loose on everybody with a shotgun.

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

The Hebrew word 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.

FYI: 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)
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
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
(a.k.a. LXX) version of the Old Testament; which is an important work quoted
numerous times in the New Testament.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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, 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 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.
_