Kicking Off With Genesis

[aspen]

Yes....Webers_Home has never been a fan of interaction with others on his public threads......

Such a bother to have to tolerate the comments of the less informed

 

[Webers_Home]

-

the last Adam, whom is spirit.

Perhaps you could start a thread for your thoughts about the last Adam,
whom is spirit rather than mimic the behavior of a female Cowbird.

/

 

[ScottA]

-


Perhaps you could start a thread for your thoughts about the last Adam,
whom is spirit rather than mimic the behavior of a female Cowbird.

/

Indeed, what communion has light with this darkness?

But, for those who will witness this behavior of what darkness does when light appears, let it be known that it is not the word of God that is being preached here, but rather the word of God is being used to hinder the going forth of the spirit of God. For the history of the physical nature of mankind was made complete through Jesus Christ, the Son of God - 2000 years ago. Whom came into the world to fulfill all that is written regarding the fate of all who believe in Him. Whose last victory in the flesh was to overcome death and rise above the physical realm of this world in resurrection and to ascend in the spirit of God, whom is spirit. It is He who was the Light that came into the world, that we should see Him, the manifestation of an otherwise unseen God and kingdom. This is the good news of the gospel of Christ, and the only commission of which those who share the same spirit have been charged. It is that light (the Light of the last Adam, Jesus Christ) and good news, that is being turned away here.

Nonetheless, 2000 years ago, mankind was gifted the opportunity to rise with Christ, to be born again of the spirit of God, for which He died, that we might join Him in the eternal realm of God - and live forever. In doing so, He promised to send "another Helper", the "Holy Spirit", to lead us unto all truth during a time referred to as "the church age" or "the times of the gentiles" (the nations other than Israel), when God would pour out His spirit upon all flesh, some unto everlasting contempt and some unto everlasting life. But here, all truth leading unto life everlasting, the truth sent to us from Christ via the Holy Spirit...is not welcome.

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Continuing from Post #13


Genesis 1:26-27

● Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after
our likeness.

The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the
narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation
regarding the identities of the antecedents.

The Hebrew word for "Man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which, in this case, simply
refers to human life; i.e. humanity. It's actually a specie name rather than a
proper name.

Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who believe that
humanity's creator is some sort of hominid; or at least resembles one. But
according to Christ, Man's creator is non physical.

"God is spirit" (John 4:24)

Spirits don't have solid bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)

God instructed Moses' people to avoid making any kind of mannequin,
figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has any true
concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex 4:10-19,
John 1:18, John 5:37)

There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling its creator;
except maybe the air in front of our face-- neither Man, nor beast, nor plant,
nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom 1:21-23).
Pagan concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely
fantasy. (Rom 1:25)

One of the meanings of image and likeness is located at Gen 5:3.

"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father
of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

The apostle Paul once said to the men of Athens, relative to the creator: "We
are His offspring". (Acts 17:28-29)

In other words: the creator, in a strange sort of way, is humanity's parent.

"I said: You are sons of the Most High." (Ps 82:6b)

If humans were paternal sons of the Most High-- viz: if they were biological
sons --they'd be immortal because God is immortal; i.e. like begets like. But
humans are not immortal.

"Nevertheless you will die like men" (Ps 82:7)

So then we are safe to conclude that humanity's image and likeness of God
isn't the same as Seth's image and likeness of Adam; and humanity's divine
sonship isn't biological. God didn't reproduce in order to bring humans into
existence, rather, He created them into existence from dust rather than
birthing them from Himself.

Humans then, because of their special relationship with the creator, are,
from a certain point of view, a divine species of created life.

"I said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6a)

So very early it comes out that there are at least two categories of gods in
the Bible; there's the supreme god called Jehovah, and there is the lesser
god called Man.

There is of course only one true god (Deut 6:4, John 17:3, 1Cor 8:4-6) so
we conclude that Man's divinity isn't intrinsic, rather, it's ersatz; i.e.
artificial. It's a bestowed kind of divinity rather than inherited. Jesus Christ,
on the other hand, got his divinity by inheritance; which is a kind of divinity
that's vastly superior to Adam's; viz: humans are artificial gods; while Jesus
Christ is the genuine article. (Heb 1:1-14)

● Gen 1:26b . . let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground.

Humanity's sovereignty, power, and control over nature is primarily where
we find the exercise of its image and likeness of God; in other words: Man
does not answer to nature-- just the opposite --nature answers to Man. (Ps
8:4-8)

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down, i.e.
subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.

I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:

We are not above the Earth;
We are of the Earth.

Well . . I respect the Native American cultural feelings behind that
statement; and must admit that I agree with it whole-heartedly. But
creation's creator decreed that though Man is of the earth; he is very
definitely above it too, and has the God-given right to subjugate every living
thing on the planet including its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its
soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its
tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself. According to Heb 2:8,
humanity is on track to take control of even more.

● Gen 1:27 . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them.

It's okay to pity people who refuse to be identified by their gender and
prefer to be known as non binary, i.e. as neither male nor female. But there
is no just no way on God's green earth that Bible believing Christians should
ever be supportive of the non binary movement because the image and
likeness of God finds its completeness in distinct male and female gender
identities.

There's a term for people who believe themselves to be someone and/or
something other than what and/or who they really are. I think it might be
called Dissociative Disorder. There was a time when society confined people
with those kinds of conditions to psychiatric facilities for observation and
therapy, but nowadays political correctness requires that they be "included".
But God-honoring Christian churches dare not accept into their membership
someone known to identify themselves as non binary.

"See to it that no one misses the grace of God, and that no bitter root grows
up to cause trouble and defile many." (Heb 12:15)

A bitter root is one belonging to a species unfit for human consumption.
When you find noxious vegetation sprouting in your garden, you've got to
get out there with a hoe and dig that stuff up before it spreads out of
control.

NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to
the first couple; but it can just as easily refer to the human race in total. In
other words: Gen 1:26-27 speaks of all of us; and by extension, so does
Gen 2:16-17 because according to Rom 5:12, that's how it worked out.

Some women would be offended by association with a male pronoun but it's
a biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's natural gender, all
human beings are of the 'adam species and can be legitimately referred to
as a him or as a he because all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of
a solo specimen; including Eve because she was made from a human tissue
sample taken from a man's body. Bible students really have to watch for
that because when they run across the word "man" and/or "men" in the
Bible, it doesn't always indicate males.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 1:28-30

● Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile
and increase,

Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have
children; and that they have no business getting married for any other
reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law;
especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and
the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.

It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments
unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g.
Deut 28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned--
it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.

NOTE: The belief that couples should enter marriage for no other reason
than procreation is an invention right out of an ascetic imagination; and if
truth be known, it's in defense of a celibate clergy. According to Gen 2:18
24 and 1Cor 7:7-9, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship
rather than procreation. If in fact deliberately childless marriages are wrong,
then Catholicism's platonic union of Joseph and the Lord's mom would be a
sinful relationship.

Without the empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup
spoon. So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it
is because the blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own
kind of life on to a next generation. God quit creating after six days. So
unless creatures were enabled to reproduce, all would soon die out and
become quite extinct in a very short time.

Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God
intended for His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He
wired them all with libido rather than instilling within them a sense of duty.
It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their
own, propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections.

● Gen 1:28b . . fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the
sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.

The Hebrew word for "master" is from kabash (kaw-bash') which emphasizes
coercion and force; and means: to disregard; to conquer, and to violate.

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down; to
subjugate.

kabash and radah are very strong language. Those two words combined
leave no room for doubt regarding Man's supremacy in the sphere of things.
God blessed humanity with the authority to dominate and to violate planet
Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to no plant
nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of
humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be
arrested for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because this earth is
Man's domain.

But the interesting thing is; the Adam species is also the monarch of the
whole cosmos; not just the dinky little third rock from the Sun where he
hangs his hat.

"For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put
under him." (Heb 2:6-8)

● Gen 1:29-30 . . God said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant
that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit;
they shall be yours for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the
winged creatures of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth,
in which there is the breath of life, I give all the green plants for
food. And it was so.

Prior to the Flood; man, beast, bug, and birds too-- even the lions and tigers
and hawks and eagles and vultures and crocodiles --subsisted on fruits,
nuts, grains, and vegetables. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for
sea life is not stated.

That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so
uniquely suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I
think it's obvious that they didn't use their teeth like that at first.

For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand
off but they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber
like upper canine teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes
twigs and lichen. And everybody knows about Wally the walrus' big ol' tusks;
which he doesn't use to kill his food, but rather, to plow up the sea bottom
in search of his favorite mollusks.

Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid, named Tiarajudens
eccentricus, exhibits saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed
leaves and stems with interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.

In the kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and
nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a danger to either Man
or to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 1:31

● Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very
good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Some feel that the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --was
created incomplete, not quite up to snuff: that it was to Man that God
entrusted the task of putting on the finishing touches. But that is very
doubtful. Why ever would God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work
by pronouncing it all good-- and not just good, but "very" good. Why would
He say the creation was very good if in truth it was incomplete?

In reality, Man hasn't improved the planet at all. He has actually ravaged it
and left it with terrible damage-- leveled mountains, dried up rivers, emptied
lakes, drained marshes, indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out
animals to extinction, scraped away perfectly good cropland and replaced it
with warehouses and factories and malls and residential communities.

Plus denuded water sheds thus causing unnecessary erosion and stream
sedimentation, dammed rivers thus disrupting ancient fish migration routes,
over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and
greenhouse gas emissions, poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and
waterways with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GMO vegetation; and made
possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.

It seems that everything Man touches, it ruins; and as if the earth isn't
enough, he's moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched
its first Sputnik into low earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered
the sky around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk,
which is only a fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe
larger than one centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch).
Humans have even discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon,
including Alan Shepherd's golf balls.

So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does
that mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be
a strange craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with pride and
satisfaction in a job well done.

I believe creation's creator knew precisely what He was doing, and where He
was going with creation; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as
planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like
experimenters in medicine and rocket science. Nobody could build a fully
functioning cosmos and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless
they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.

"O Yhvh! . . what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have
made them all. (Ps 104:24)

NOTE: The information disclosed in the first chapter of Genesis is
incorporated in the text of a gospel labeled as "everlasting".

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and
kindred, and tongue, and people, announcing with a loud voice: Fear God,
and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship
him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
(Rev 14:6-7)

The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is:

1• There's a supreme being.

2• He deserves respect.

3• There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and

4• The cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product
of intelligent design.

Of particular interest to me is the inclusion of water in the everlasting
gospel. Scientists theorize the origin of the earth's amazing quantity of water
without really knowing exactly where it came from, nor how it got here.
Well; that is one of the things that I like about Genesis. It takes an
essentially unsophisticated, uneducated blue-collar welder like myself and
gives him answers to questions that people much brighter, and better
educated cannot answer.

Giving "glory" simply indicates giving someone credit where credit is due;
and "worship" can be roughly defined as reverence, i.e. honor and respect.

It's quite natural to admire celebrities, pro athletes, and super achievers-- to
give them credit where credit is due --but not quite so natural to do the
same for their creator.

Anyway, point being: people either believe in intelligent design, or they
don't. If they do believe, then they will admire both the designer's genius
and His handiwork. If they don't believe; then they will neither admire nor
respect anything about Him: simple as that.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:1-5

● Gen 2:1-2 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their
array. On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been
doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He
had done.

Thrice it's stated in that passage that the creator finished His work and
ceased creating things for the current cosmos; yet people are still under the
impression that He creates new souls every time a baby is conceived in its
mommy's womb. But the seventh day isn't bounded by an evening and a
morning; ergo: it has not yet ended; which means God hasn't gone back to
creating things for the current cosmos.

Adam's progeny-- you and I and all the others --are not direct creations;
no; we're reproductions; viz: there's no need for mankind's creator to take a
hand in producing baby souls, or any other souls for that matter-- either
birds, bugs, beasts, or fish --because He created all life on earth as
sustainable, transferable kinds of life. The blessing of fertility is a remarkable
blessing because it enables living things to reproduce themselves sans divine
micro management. That's pretty amazing when you think about it.

In the future; after the current cosmos is destroyed, God will once again roll
up His sleeves, and go back to work creating things.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall
not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isa 65:17)

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the
heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned
up . . . we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2Pet 3:10-13)

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first
earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev 21:1)

● Gen 2:3 . . And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy,
because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had
done.

The phrase "declared it holy" is from the word qadash (kaw-dash') which
means: to be clean, or to make, pronounce, or observe as clean; viz:
sanitize. Pronouncing something clean, or observing something as clean
and/or conferring upon something the status of clean and sanitized, doesn't
mean it's intrinsically clean. It's just regarded as fully dedicated to God's
purposes; which is exactly what the word "sanctified" implies. The Hebrew
word for "sanctify" is also qadash: the very same word as for "declared it
holy".

● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made
earth and heaven.

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm
here refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies categorizing each of the six days of creation as
epochs of indeterminate length.

Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where the name Yhvh appears.
The correct pronunciation is currently unknown. Sometimes it's pronounced
Yehovah, sometimes Jehovah, and sometimes Yahweh.

Yhvh's appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every
effort to avoid speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some
of their writings, in order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising
the tetragrammaton, they write instead "The Name" and/or sometimes
"Hashem". So Ex 20:3 could be written: "I, The Name, am your god" or "I,
Hashem, am your god."

BTW: According to Phil 2:9-11, God bestowed upon Jesus Christ the name
that is above every other name that can be named; viz: Jesus Christ has the
God-given right to be known as Yhvh. God also promoted His son to the
highest of all positions; viz: Jesus Christ now shares the very throne of God
where he's known as God, rules as God, and speaks as God; which has been
pretty much his ultimate destiny all along (Ps 2:1-12, Ps 45:1-7, Ps 110:1).
That's all I dare say about that for now lest I derail our journey thru
Genesis.

(If perchance there are Jehovah's Witnesses looking in; I'd appreciate it if
you'd take your concerns about Phil 2:9-11 some place else rather than
hijacking my blog for the Watchtower Society's doctrines. Don't be a
cowbird.)

NOTE: Yhvh is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns because He's
a king; and kings are always males rather than females; e.g. Isa 44:6.

● Gen 2:5 . . and every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew: for Yhvh God had not
caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the
ground.

Bible students have to exercise caution when reading that section in order to
avoid making the mistake of concluding that human life was created prior to
vegetation; when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account in the
first chapter that humans were the very last to be put on earth. Gen 2:4-7 is
only saying that when God created vegetation on day three, it wasn't
permitted to flourish right away.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:6-7

● Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole
face of the ground.

The word "mist" is from 'ed (ade). It's a very rare word and appears only
one more time in the whole Bible at Job 36:26-30 where translators render it
to mean water vapor; viz: fog. California's coastal redwood trees derive
much of their moisture from fog.

The reason for the mist is something I learned in a high school science class.
Had God brought rain prior to flourishing ground cover, the land would have
eroded something awful and millions of cubic yards of perfectly good dirt
would have washed into creeks, and streams, and rivers to be carried out to
sea where it would be lost in perpetuity.

● Gen 2:7a . . And Yhvh God formed a man's body

Mankind's creator didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children
or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny
--humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by
craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly
sand for their base material.

● Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground

The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to
powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or
rubbish.

A major ingredient in the human body's construction is water, without which
its "dust' wouldn't coalesce. Water is essential to complex organisms; which
is why scientists get really excited when they discover it out in in the
universe.

● Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life

The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among
other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire)
burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4)
to animate.

Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the
order to start their engines.

The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff.
Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul,
spirit, blast, and inspiration.

What we're looking at here is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the
regular kind because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of
a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried.

However, there's abundant evidence in the Bible, starting here in Genesis,
indicating that it's possible to pump life into a corpse. But in order to do
that, one first needs a source of life just as in regular artificial respiration
one first needs a source of air.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by
him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was
life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

That says pretty much the same thing as Gen 2:7, and then adds the fact
that God himself is the source of life from which He drew the life He used to
fire up the man's body.

● Gen 2:7d . . and man became a living soul.

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh). Its first appearance is at
Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at
Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts;
and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.

Soul is somewhat ambiguous. In the beginning, it refers to sentient life--
both human life and animal life --as opposed to non sentient life, i.e.
vegetation. In other places, soul refers to the bottom of one's heart, i.e. the
very core of their being; e.g. Gen 27:4 and Gen 34:3.

Souls exist as individuals, i.e. beings with a sense of self; viz: a sense of
personal identity; which is more or less permanent.

For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31
passed away, they all left their human bodies behind, yet on the other side
they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully sentient.

I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one
thing I do know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have
they lost their identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus,
and the rich man is still the rich man.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:8-9

● Gen 2:8a . .Yhvh God planted a garden in Eden,

The remainder of Earth's flora was planted in a large scale, landscaping
manner. But the garden was specially prepared for Man like someone might
build a home for their family. It's true that Man is a creature and Yhvh isn't
his actual biological kin. But Man is much more than just another nephesh
like as if he were a pet canary or a gerbil. No, human beings were given the
honor of God's image, and are as close to being God's kin as a creature can
possibly get in the natural world.

The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan and means: a garden as fenced.
So the garden wasn't just a nondescript parcel of acreage with apricots and
turnips growing wild on it. The garden (which very likely was a full-blown
farm complete with orchards) was meant to be tended.

● Gen 2:8b . . in the east

"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood.
Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago;
while the world considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern
navigation, everything towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich
England around the world to Samoa is East longitude, and everything
towards sunset around the world to Samoa is West longitude.

So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but
if you were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a
matter of perspective.

For Bible purposes, the State of Israel is oftentimes regarded the geo
political center of the Earth. Its position is spiritually elevated too. So
whenever you go to Jerusalem, you go up. And when you leave, you go
down. It was from the east (east of Jerusalem) that magi came to pay their
respects to the young Jesus. (Matt 2:1)

Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the
garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in"
Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people
think Eden was somewhere in Africa but that's just a shot in the dark.

The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw') and
means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very nice location
and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley or
Pleasant Acres.

● Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed.
And from the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree that was
pleasing to the sight and good for food,

The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but
there's no reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended
home. And I think we can safely assume the garden was already viable and
productive when Man arrived. God didn't just throw him in the water to sink
or swim. He gave the man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam
wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a
place to settle down and call home.

Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence who looked
out for the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first,
and got him off to a good start; which was a good thing because at this
point in history, humans were an endangered species seeing as how there
was only one breeding pair in existence.

● Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,

The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has
something in it that sustains life: indefinitely. Exactly how the chemistry of
any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human body from
getting old and falling apart is currently unknown.

A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is
gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet,
gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and
therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to
stop it.

● Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

The Hebrew word for "good" in 2:9 is from towb (tobe). It's an ambiguous
word and isn't restricted to morals, ethics, or scruples. Even a tasty meal or
an entertaining movie can be towb.

The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's another ambiguous word; and
includes anything that's bad for us like poison ivy, playing with matches,
E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals, salmonella, eating without washing your
hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny stocks, walking on train tracks,
pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.

From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the knowledge
of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man
was created intelligent; he was basically ignorant. A sense of right and
wrong wasn't programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn right
and wrong via Divine tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative--
and certainly not by doing something patently foolish like eating from a tree
known to be toxic to humans.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:10-14

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

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

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

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

The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Genesis 2:15-17

● 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.

Q: 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 alter human consciousness? Why even create
such a tree in the first place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.

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

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

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Parenthesis

The ban on the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, was tempered by a
carte blanche to eat fruits from all the rest of the trees; including the tree of
life. So it's not like God pigeonholed Adam and forced him to eat from the
wrong tree in order to survive.

Earlier, in Gen 1:29, God gave Adam permission to eat all manner of plant
life. So he had lots of options. An abundance of other nutrition was available.
Therefore, if Adam ate from the wrong tree, he had no excuse for it. And
that is what really made eating from that tree so serious-- it was willful, and
done in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence.

Compare Num 15:27-31 where willful sin is described as a category of sin
for which there is neither atonement nor forgiveness under the terms and
conditions of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Q: Why on earth would God plant a deadly tree in an otherwise perfect
environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a tree
serve that has the potential to kill? Why even create such a tree in the first
place?

A: The tree wasn't a bad tree. When God finished creating, He looked over
His work on the 6th day and pronounced it all not just good, but "very"
good.

The tree of the knowledge of good and bad wasn't a bad tree per se; any
more than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening, rattlesnakes, scorpions,
avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles,
tsunamis, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead, cadmium, and arsenic
and hemlock are bad in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes,
but they all fit into the natural scheme of things. When people willfully cross
over boundaries, ignoring the dangers, and start messing around, then they
get hurt and it's really no one's fault but their own. For example:

San Francisco was once destroyed by an earthquake related to the San
Andreas fault; but where did they rebuild San Francisco? Right back in the
same place.

Los Angeles is at risk of the same San Andreas, and are even now as I write
this preparing for a major quake. Are there plans to evacuate Los Angeles
and relocate the city? No. They plan to ride out whatever the San Andreas
and/or any of the other faults throw at them and city planners and disaster
control specialists have already calculated the body count because the
Andreas is overdue for a massive slip and so is the Puente Hills Blind Thrust
System. City officials know big quakes are coming but nobody is getting out
of the way.

All around the island of Japan are ancient monoliths, some as much as 600
years old, with the inscription "Do not build your homes below this point".
The monoliths testify to past tsunamis. People back then set up those
monoliths to warn future generations; but do future generations listen? No;
they don't. 25,000 Japanese are listed as dead and/or missing from the
tsunami of 2011 because they settled in communities below those ancient
water marks.

The below-sea-level city of New Orleans was flooded by hurricane Katrina in
2005. Did city planners wise up and relocate the city to higher ground? No;
they rebuilt right back in the same place.

On the eastern edge of the Democratic Republic of the Congo rumbles Mount
Nyirangongo; one of the most active volcanoes in the world. The city of
Goma, consisting of something like one million people, will be pelted with
falling rocks and lava splatter, and buried by molten rock and pyroclastic
flows of superheated dust just as sudden as the city of Pompeii if that
mountain should ever decide to get serious about its business. Past
eruptions bear this out.

And as if the volcano itself isn't threat enough, 2,590 hectares Lake Kivu
nearby conceals an enormous underwater concentration of carbon dioxide
and methane which could be released by a major eruption, spreading a
lethal cloud across Goma that would spare no one.

Are Gomites concerned? No. Thousands of homes-- shacks constructed of
hand-hewn eucalyptus boards and sheet metal roofs --have been built right
on top of the solidified lava of past eruptions. In other words; the Gomites
are knowingly living at ground zero; right in Mt. Nyirangongo's known kill
zone.

The Cumberland River inflicted major flood damage throughout the city of
Nashville in 2010. Pete Fisher, manager of the Grand Ole Opry needed a
canoe to get across the parking lot and enter the theater. He reported that
had someone been sitting in the front row seats, they would have seven feet
of water over their heads. Did the owners move the Opry to higher ground?
Nope, the Opry is still right there on the banks of the Cumberland targeted
for the next flood event.

City planners have known for years that Manhattan is so few feet above
mean sea level that any sizable tsunami at all would flood both the city and
its subway system; but have the Sand Hogs stopped boring tunnels or have
construction workers stopped erecting buildings? No, they keep right on
boring and erecting; and in 2012 hurricane Sandy pushed a surge of sea
water inland and crippled the city's public transportation and much of its
electrical power.

Adam was given fair warning what would happen if he ate from the tree. It
was just as fair a warning as parents give their kids not to poke paper clips
into wall sockets or lean over too close with their face when they pet a
strange dog. Consequences for spurning a parent's instructions in those
cases can be very terrible.

"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the
simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." (Pro 22:3)

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:18-20

● Gen 2:18 . .Yhvh God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I
will make a fitting helper for him.

That is a curious statement considering that God had given His creation a
evaluation of "very good" back in Gen 1:31.

Well; the evaluation was based upon "every thing that He had made" so
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.

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

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

You know what that suggests to me? It suggests 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 Companion. Woman's potential for companionship is
the primary reason that God made her-- not for her sex appeal nor for her
reproductive value; no, for companionship.

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. That route proved futile.

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

Adam's task would have been overwhelming if as many varieties existed in
his day as ours; which I honestly don't think did because, for one thing,
prior to the existence of humans the earth underwent some mass extinction
events. I'm sure Adam loved animals; I mean look: he gave them all names;
which is something that people who make their living in animal husbandry
try to avoid because the practice can lead to attachments; thus making the
situation very difficult when it's time for sale and/or slaughter.

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

But as cute and cuddly as creatures are, they just don't have what it takes
to be the kind of companion that a human being really needs.

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

That's telling me that people who seek companionship from a pet are out of
kilter because pets are unbefitting-- they're a lower form of life than people;
and God didn't create them to be people's personal companions, no,
according to Gen 1:26-28 He created them to be people's servants. I think
that even to this day, were most people given a choice between human
companionship and that of a lower form of life; they would opt for the
human.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:21-23a

● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man;
and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at
that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from
the man into a woman;

The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the
only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an
English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places,
it's translated "side" which is really how it should be translated because
according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam included some of his
flesh.

The woman didn't complete the creation of Man-- God wrapped all of
creation back in Gen 2:1-3. And in point of fact, it's said in Gen 1:27 that
the male and the female were both created at the very same time on the
very same day.

Q: So; where was the woman all the time between Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:21
22?

Q: She was existing in Adam's body.

That's not a new idea. For example: Heb 7:9-10 says that Levi existed in
Abraham's body.

● Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim: Hot diggity
dog! Now I can get laid! No he didn't say that at all.

● Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh.

In other words: finally somebody Adam could relate to; and the expression
became a colloquialism, e.g. Gen 29:13-14)

Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is
precisely why God made women: to be their husband's buddy. Therefore
wives who aren't their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can
only be accepted as cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality.

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

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

POP QUIZ: How many friends do people need to dispel feelings of isolation
and loneliness? Answer: Just one-- if that one is a supportive spouse.

They say dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs are beasts. They
might bring a man his slippers; but a dog lacks the capacity to nurse a man
when he's down with the flu, or sympathize with him when his job is
outsourced to cheap labor in India. No; a human being's best friend is a
spouse that looks out for them.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 2:23b-25

● Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she
taken.

The Hebrew word for "woman" is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being as an individual or
as a male person. So 'ishshah doesn't indicate another species of human life
(e.g. Lilith) it just simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin.

It's also important to note that the woman wasn't constructed from the dust
of the earth. She was constructed from Adam, therefore women are just as
much Adam as Adam; ergo: children born of women are just as much Adam
as Adam: whether virgin-conceived or normally-conceived makes no
difference-- they're all just as much Adam's progeny as Eve's.

● Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings
to his wife,

Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy spouses
because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking
about that kind of clinging. It seems to me more like reliance; and if a man
can't rely on his wife; who can he rely on? Reliance implies faithfulness: day
in, and day out. You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got
the wrong idea about what it means to hook up with somebody.

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

Adultery is very serious not only because it's immoral, but also because it's
an act of theft. Spouses that cheat on their partners are no different than
carjackers taking an SUV that doesn't belong to them and selling it to a chop
shop.

There comes a time in every youth's life when it's time for him to grow up,
sever the apron strings, leave home, become his own man, and take up
residence with his own woman.

Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that his mother is another
man's woman. When my son was around 29 years old and home for
Christmas one year, his mother and I were having a disagreement and he
stuck up for her. I had to take my son aside and school him that it is a
serious breach of male etiquette to come between a man and his wife. I let
him get by with it that time; but in another man's home his meddling just
might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.

● Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.

The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6 and Rom 7:1-3,
this particular unification is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor
6:15-16 isn't limited to marriage; it takes effect even when people sleep
around; ergo: when a man sleeps with a woman, any woman, he's stuck
with her for life, and she with him, whether they agree to it or not because
that is what God has decreed.

● Gen 2:25a . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife,

It's very difficult to believe that God fully intended for people to always live
without clothing. So how come early Man didn't need protection for his skin?
Nobody really knows for sure; maybe because human beings had fur, or that
human skin was a whole lot tougher and thicker than now; and far more
resistant to abrasion and sunlight.

Still; nudity seems so impractical. And I would imagine that Adam and his
wife needed to bathe pretty often too. Without clothing to protect their skin
from dust and grime, in no time at all they would be as funky as two pigs in
a puddle.

● Gen 2:25b . . yet they felt no shame.

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

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal nudity; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam was a
product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance in the nude.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal nudity at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet
they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt
complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and
narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had
absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any
because their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither
intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Some
expositors label this era in the human experience as the age of innocence;
which implies not just an ignorance of ethics; but primarily a lack of self
consciousness-- which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's
self as an object of the observation of others. Had somebody criticized the
first couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their
critic like a man taken leave of his senses.

/

 

[twinc]

-
Continuing from Post #13


Genesis 1:26-27

● Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after
our likeness.

Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who believe that
man's creator is a human being; or at least resembles one. But according to
Christ, creation's God is non physical.

"God is spirit" (John 4:24)

Spirits don't have solid bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)

Moses warned Yhvh's people to avoid making any kind of mannequin,
figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has any true
concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex 4:10-19)

There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling its creator;
except maybe the air in front of your face-- neither Man, nor beast, nor
plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom 1:21
23). Concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely
fantasy. (Rom 1:25)

The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the
narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation
regarding the identities of the antecedents.

● Gen 1:26b . . let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground.

Humanity's right to dominate the earth is where we find its image and
likeness of God. In other words: Man's image and likeness of God is all about
sovereignty, power, control, and authority. (cf. Gen 44:18)

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down, i.e.
subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.

I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:

We are not above the Earth;
We are of the Earth.

Well . . I respect the Native American cultural feelings behind that
statement; and must admit that I agree with it whole-heartedly. But
creation's creator decreed that though Man is of the earth; he is very
definitely above it too, and has the God-given right to subjugate every living
thing on the planet including its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its
soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its
tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself. According to Heb 2:8,
humanity is on track to take control of even more.

● Gen 1:27 . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them.

The language of that verse is inconsistent with verse 26. In that location
Man was created in "our" image. In this verse Man is said to be created in
"His" image. It appears to me that the difference is due to the word "own".
In other words; "our image and likeness" is not quite the same as "His own
image". There seems to be a subtle difference between "us create" and "He
created"; or maybe it's just my imagination.

NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to
the first male and the first female; but it can just as easily refer to the
human race in total. In other words: Gen 1:26-27 is where we all began.

Some women would be offended to be called a "him" but it's a biblical
designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's gender, all human beings are
of the Adam species and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he
because all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of Adam; including
Eve because she was made from a human tissue sample amputated from
Adam's body. Bible students really have to watch for that because when
they run across the word "man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't eo ipso
indicate males

/

man = represents humankind as men carry both male and female chromosomes whilst a woman only carries female - image and likeness can only really be understood when it is understood and accepted that matter has been dematerialised and that everything is mental and spiritual - twinc

 

[twinc]

-
Genesis 1:4b-5

● Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God
called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of
deducing the correct chronology of Easter week.

Anyplace there's light, there is no true darkness because light always dispels
darkness. However, darkness is powerless to dispel light. In other words;
science and industry have given the world a flashlight; but they have yet to
give the world a flashdark. Man can produce artificial lighting, but he can't
produce artificial darkness. Anyway, point being; light is the superior of the
two and rules the dark; for example:

"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend
it." (John 1:5)

The koiné Greek word for "comprehend" is katalambano (kat-al-am-ban'-o)
which basically means to take, seize, or possess eagerly. At 1Thess 5:4 it's
translated overtake (as a thief, in a sudden and/or unexpected way). At
Mark 9:18 it's translated seizure (as in demon possession).

The idea is: darkness is powerless to stop light from dominating it. Even a
little kid with a candle can conquer darkness; because light, even the light
from a candle, is impervious to darkness, and darkness has no way to fight
it off and/or beat it back. However, where there is no light, then darkness
definitely has the advantage.

● Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first
Day.

In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18

Seeing as how it says evening "and" morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.

In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup
and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high
noon and sunset; viz: afternoon.

Just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to Gen
1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day; which
has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.

However; the fossil record, in combination with scientific dating methods,
has thus far easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several
million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour
calendar days. That's not an unreasonable estimation; e.g.

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

So then, why can't some people accept an epochal explanation? Why are
they so insistent upon 24-hour calendar days? Because they're hung up
on the expression "evening and morning".

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so people end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the
earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than
enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words:
science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that
religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer; viz: science and religion are not really enemies; no, to the contrary,
science and religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the
bottom of some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

/

day must be 24hrs, especially according to context because one cannot have six seconds or minutes or hours or months or years shall thou labour or a local flood after forty thousand years of non stop rain or resurrection that just has not even happened after three thousand years but "ye shall surely die in the day that you eat of the forbidden fruit" could be true in Adam's case if that day was a thousand years since Adam died just within a thousand years - twinc

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:1a

● Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of
the field which the Lord God had made.

Probably no other creature in the Bible provokes so much skepticism as the
Serpent. It just smacks of mythology.

But this particular serpent was no ordinary reptile. It was indeed a
remarkable creature. Not only was it capable of language, and able to
communicate on a very sophisticated level with human beings, but it had an
exceptional IQ too. It grasped the significance of a supreme being, and
totally understood the workings of human nature and the human mind. No
mere animal is capable of that degree of insight, cognition, and
communication.

The final book in the New Testament confirms the Serpent's true identity,
and it is none other than the dark spirit being well known to everyone as the
Devil and Satan. (Rev 20:1-3).

According to Christ, Mr. Serpent was in the world from the very beginning;
and his stock in trade was murder and deception right from the get go.
(John 8:44)

Since Rev 20:1-3 has not yet come to pass, then the Serpent remains at
large and very active in today's modern world. It is highly skilled at mental
suggestions: secretly guiding mankind along a road to self destruction. It is
the source of much of the world's political tensions, and certainly the
impetus behind all large scale anti-Semitic agendas.

I have never seen the Serpent myself; nor would I care to. But I know from
Matt 4:1-11 that Christ saw it, and spoke with it. From that passage it's
obvious that the Serpent is capable of human speech, understands human
needs and weaknesses, believes in the existence of God, understands the
concept of worship, a master of sophistry, understands the Bible, and
understands the advantages of manipulating human minds, and world
power.

The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of God to
sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't hesitate to entice a
little nobody like Eve. But Eve was extremely strategic; she was the high
ground in the battle for men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the
mother of all subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root
of humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human race; and it
did. (Eph 2:1-3)

The Serpent seems possessed with a strange, criminal mentality: beyond
comprehension. But then, so are pedophiles, serial killers, unabombers, ISIS
extremists, terrorists, and men like Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo,
Karla Homolka, Ted Kaczynski, and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of criminals
are prisoners of dark minds clouded with anti-social inclinations. The
Serpent, though surely an incredible genius; is nonetheless an evil genius;
not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action comics.

Psychopaths are a cunning breed of predators who lack empathy, remorse,
and impulse control; readily violating social rules and exploiting others to get
what they want. Curiously, psychopaths are often so charming and
manipulative that they are well concealed behind a mask of normalcy
sometimes for years and even their entire lives.

Five common elements of psychopathy are evident in the Serpent's
behavior.

1• Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

2• Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

3• Reckless disregard for the safety of others.

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

5• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.

If those elements sound familiar it's because they're the all-too-typical
management practices of corporations the likes of ENRON, Nike, Nestlé,
Bechtel, Union Carbide, Shell Oil, and Monsanto.

Wall Street is especially brutal. I watched a trader interviewed in a
documentary who said that his first reaction-- upon seeing the Twin Towers
aflame in 2001 --wasn't concern for the families and friends of the 2,300
killed and missing; rather, he inwardly exclaimed: Oh m' Gawd! What will
that do to the price of gold?! In that man's mind, a catastrophe isn't a
tragedy, no, it's an opportunity. Futures traders are very attuned to things
like that; and in their world: nice guys really do finish last.

The garment and textile industry in particular, stands out as the poster child
of psychopathic management practices: a veritable jewel in the Serpent's
crown.

What we see in human nature often mirrors the Serpent's own dark
personality. But the origin of the Serpent's twisted mind is really puzzling.
How did it get that way? Was it a birth defect? Did it bump its head?

I don't know; but one thing is for sure though: the Serpent's fondness for
deceit is living proof that angels are not mindless robots created to obey the
will of God without thought or question. No; they too have a mind of their
own, and the freedom of choice between good and evil-- the very same
choices that Man is at liberty to exercise. Satan chose poorly, and his human
counterparts oftentimes do too.

The event recorded in this third chapter is a bit of an enigma. The reason
being that not only can God see the future as if watching a video recording,
but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the event in
this chapter wasn't unexpected; and God could have, had He wished, easily
prevented it.

People are upset with creation's God for not stepping in and preventing the
so-called fall of man. But they need to remember that humanity holds the
rank of a king on this earth and has the God-given authority to conduct its
own affairs as a sovereign (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Ps 82:6). Besides;
does anybody really want to live in a micro-managed Big Brother society? I
don't think so. But that's the logic behind just about every product liability
lawsuit.

Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to cure
humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability lawsuits go after
suppliers who provide the means for humanity to destroy itself.

God gave humanity the liberty to destroy itself; and actually, that's the way
many of us prefer it because we want to make our own choices rather than
have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics limit the choices available to us.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:1b-4

● Gen 3:1b . . He said to the woman,

A characteristic of Eden's world was not only a lack of human death, but also
a lack of fear. Man feared neither himself, nor the other creatures, nor the
dark, nor the boogie man.

The woman displayed no recorded astonishment whatsoever when the
Serpent spoke to her; which suggests it had associated with the Adams on
other occasions before this incident; and possibly had become a close family
friend. Before making its move to wreck their life, the Serpent more than
likely spent some time in advance nurturing a rapport with the Adams so the
woman would have no cause for alarm when it approached; and would.
therefore not suspect its intentions.

That's actually a pretty effective sales approach. Many years ago I sold
vacuum cleaners for a little while. I was trained to engage potential
customers in chit-chat, a.k.a. small talk, to break the ice and get them to let
their guards down. In other words; to build some trust before I got down to
the predatory business of talking them into buying something expensive that
they could easily get by without.

Being an innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman would
certainly never suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and
truthful. Up to this point, Eve wasn't even aware that something called a lie
existed. And actually, she didn't even know what honesty was either
because nobody had taught her anything about it yet.

● Gen 3:1c . . Did God really say: You shall not eat of any tree of the
garden?

Catching the woman alone, away from her husband's oversight, the Serpent
began subtly introducing a concept which neither she nor Adam had even
imagined before: it is actually possible for a creature to question its maker.
However; that is not a particularly good idea.

"Shame on him who argues with his Maker, though naught but a potsherd of
earth!" (Isa 45:9)

"All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account. [God] does as He wishes
with the host of heaven, and with the inhabitants of the earth. There is none
to stay His hand or say to Him: What have You done?" (Dan 4:32)

Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning to Eve?
Well, Adam was a tougher nut to crack because he got his intel straight from
the horse's mouth and knew the truth very clearly and without ambiguity.
But the woman quite possibly was instructed second hand, in conversations
with her husband; who was, in effect, her personal rabbi. So it would be
fairly easy to convince Eve that maybe she didn't hear her husband
correctly; or worse; that he didn't know what he was talking about. I mean:
isn't there more than one way to interpret the Bible? How do you know your
way is the right way?

Of course it was ridiculous to suggest the humans were forbidden to eat of
"any" tree. But the Serpent was slowly sneaking up on the woman with
subtle suggestions. Probing for weak points, the Serpent tested her
understanding of God's instructions by asking a question that she should
have been able to answer with relative ease. In response; the woman
bounced right back and quoted God like a pro (or so she thought).

● Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the
fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree
in the middle of the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or
touch it, lest you die.

Is that really what God said? No, that's not what God said. He forbad their
eating the fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)

Eve failed to repeat what God said, rather, she interpreted what He said.
Apparently, in her mind's eye, the ban on eating the fruit implied not
touching it. Consequently; Eve's humanistic reasoning put a spin on God's
instructions so that instead of following them to the letter, the woman
revised them to mean something that God didn't actually say.

Eve fell prey to a very human weakness-- not only of revising God, but of a
tendency to make the laws of God more cumbersome and more strict than
they really are.

Revisions in the form of interpretations change the meanings of God's
sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While often containing a
kernel of truth, revisions are nevertheless not the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, rather, amalgams of truth and human error that falsify God's
teachings and direct people off in the wrong direction; leading them to
believe, and to repeat, things that aren't true.

Revisions are also very useful for manipulating people to favor the Serpent's
wishes rather than their creator's. Thus, without their knowing it, they fall in
line and become the Serpent's sheep instead of Christ's.

● Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to
die,

Here we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth; which
Webster's defines as: a statement that is only partly true and that is
intended to deceive people. In other words: a half-truth contains a kernel of
truth but not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Having already tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions, and
found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to
influence her thinking a bit more.

The woman's fall is typical. First she revised God's instructions. Then she
listened to someone refute them. Next, she will accept the refuter's
argument, and then she will break with God.

NOTE: Something that Christ's believing followers have to be constantly on
guard against is sophistry; which Webster's defines as subtly deceptive
reasoning and/or argumentation (Eph 4:11-14). Cults typically sustain
themselves by means of sophistry; which of course they call reasonable
and/or sensible. But faith isn't built upon only what makes sense to it;
rather, faith is built upon what's revealed to it.

So be careful out there; most especially with door-to-door missionaries
armed to the teeth with humanistic reasoning, semantic double-speak, and
clever half truths.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:5

● Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes
will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

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

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

Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that their creator was withholding the tree,
not because it was poisonous or anything like that; but to keep the humans
in check: much in the way that some of the world's despots utilize illiteracy,
control of radio and television programming, restricted contact with
foreigners, and limited internet access to keep their citizens subdued.

In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very
same tree and that's why He didn't want to share the fruit with them;
because then they might become savvy enough to go out on their own
without depending so much upon their maker.

In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for
the Serpent's cunning nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat wasn't
inevitable. She could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to
her guns and parroting God's instructions over and over again until the
Serpent got disgusted and gave up. She also could've talked the matter over
with her husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's
instructions early on and left her husband out of it; thus laying the
groundwork for the utter ruin of her own posterity.

/