Kicking Off With Genesis

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:6

● Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for
eating

By watching what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for
human consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good
rule of thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous
if there wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the
tree.

● Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes,

Most fruits and vegetables are appealing-- just look at bananas and pears
and apples and oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and
carrots, and radishes, and plums and mangoes and strawberries and
whatever. God doubtless made them that way so Man could not only nourish
himself, but also enjoy his food; viz: not only eat because he has to, but
also because he'd like to.

● Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,

The Hebrew word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal') which essentially means
circumspect, which Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances
and possible consequences, i.e. to be smart and/or prudent.

People with a high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life
while those of us with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide
what's best for us. So we end up seeking advice and guidance from experts
because us dummies just aren't sharp enough to go it alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Eve first deftly dice the fruit and camouflage it in a tasty parfait so her
husband wouldn't know what he was eating? No. Adam knew exactly what
he was doing. He went into it with eyes wide open.

"Adam was not the one deceived" (1Tim 2:14)

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

I think Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on Eve for some
time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he surely had
to wonder if maybe God was wrong. I think most husbands would
sympathize with Adam. I mean: here's your wife sitting right beside you
happily munching away on something that you were led to believe was toxic,
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
was?

/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Genesis 3:7

● 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.

For convenience sake; let's attribute Eve's new perception to the so-called
fallen nature. The big question is: From where did she get it?

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

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the fallen nature
is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's biological father. But Eve
was already in existence before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor
did he, pass it on to her biologically.

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it to her or the Serpent did it.

My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human
body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

"Surely I was sinful at birth; sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
(Ps 51:5)

David's statement tells me that the Devil is able to tamper with zygotes in
such a way that people come into existence with the sinful nature right from
the gun. To my knowledge the Devil can't be everywhere at once, and
seeing as how thousands of people are conceived every minute all over the
world, then it's a pretty sure bet that he has at his disposal legions of
invisible helpers to assist him in bringing sinful babies to life.

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me
to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them
that are bound" (Isa 61:1)

Who are the captives? What prison? Who are the bound? The entire planet
and everybody on it.

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the
control of the evil one." (1John 5:19)

According to Eph 2:4, everybody, Christians included, have been victims of
the power of death. The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield it
the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me
how quickly that power worked on Adam and Eve. As soon as he tasted the
fruit, they immediately set to work clothing their naked bodies.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:8-11

● Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about
in the garden at the breezy time of day;

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

The breezy time of day is a bit difficult to figure out without really knowing
the climate conditions under which Adam and his wife lived. The breezy time
may have been a routine part of their day when the mist was gently blown
around to irrigate the garden.

The Lord God may have conducted school for the Adams every day at just
about that time; so His arrival was likely expected. It was an opportunity to
share their experiences and ask questions about things in nature that they
didn't fully understand. And maybe they even talked about intelligent life on
other planets, and how to make hot cocoa and pop corn.

Can you imagine the incredible advantage of being in a classroom with the
undisputed expert on everything? You would never need a second opinion,
nor go away wondering if the speaker really knew what he was talking
about.

● Gen 3:8b-9a . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among
the trees of the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man

Why did God call out to the male? Answer: the principle of primogeniture. In
other words: the male was created first, and the female second; ergo: Adam
held the rank of firstborn and also the paterfamilias of his race; which
included his wife who, in a manner of speaking, was his first child.

NOTE: The rank of firstborn is always, and without exception, a male
position. No woman has ever held that rank in the Bible simply because
women are the wrong gender; which explains why the Bible's God has
permitted women neither in the Levitical priesthood nor the Christian
pastorate.

● Gen 3:9b . . 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!

But the important thing to note in this incident, is that God took the initiative
to seek Man, not the other way around.

● 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 naked; just partially. But even that degree of undress
lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong. I
mean: how many of us would feel comfortable opening the door to guests
while wearing nothing more than a pair of Haynes briefs? Well; prior to the
forbidden fruit incident, everybody could've opened the door dressed like
that without giving it a second thought; but now? It would definitely raise
eyebrows; at least in America anyway.

● Gen 3:11a . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked?

In other words: where'd you get the idea that undress is indecent? Well;
nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's indecent--
the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No; they just "felt"
it's indecent. In other words; it was their intuition telling them that undress
is indecent. Where did they get that? Not from their maker, that's for sure;
no, they got it from that tree.

● Gen 3:11b . . Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you
to eat?

Seeing as how God created the chemistry of that tree, then He knew in
advance how it would alter the human consciousness if people were to ingest
some of it.

That incident easily verifies that humanity's current moral compass is
maladjusted and can't be trusted to provide him with absolutes; which is
precisely why there are nine justices on the US Supreme Court instead of
just one; because one justice alone can't be trusted. In point of fact, it is
extremely rare for all nine justices to agree because they don't render
absolutes; no, they render opinions; and the majority's opinion isn't eo ipso
right; no, it's just the one we have to live with until such a time as it's
overturned by a future majority's opinion.

/

 

[7angels]

-
Genesis 1:2-4a

● Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

That statement reveals the earth's condition prior to the creation of an
energy that would make it possible for its particles to coalesce into
something coherent.

Curiously, scientists have not yet been able to figure out what gives particles
their mass. In point of fact, the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider was
constructed for the specific purpose of finding a special particle called the
Higgs Boson (a.k.a. the God particle) because it's believed that the Higgs
particle "creates" a field that somehow grants other particles their mass.

● Gen 1:2b . . and darkness was over the surface of the deep

This particular "deep" I believe can be safely assumed to be the void; viz:
the seemingly infinite space housing the known universe.

● Gen 1:2c . . and Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The "waters" at this point in the earth's history probably weren't the liquid
commonly known as H2O. It's just a "place-holder" name; viz: a convenient
label for the colossal soup of freshly created particles that would eventually
be utilized to construct the universe's physical properties.

The Spirit's job, therefore, was as a sort of cattle wrangler circling the herd
and keeping all the various particles together so they didn't drift away and
get lost because as yet there were no forces at work keeping things
together.

● Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

The creation of light was a very, very intricate process. First God had to
create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific
properties, including mass. Then He had to invent the laws of nature to
govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of,
other kinds of matter in order to generate electromagnetic radiation.

Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of lengths
and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons. And though
light has no detectable mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also quite
invisible. For example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and you can
see the Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of the Sun's
light is visible in the void between them and that's because light isn't
matter; it's energy.

The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate electromagnetic
radiation also make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice,
soil, rain, life, centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy,
gravity, atoms, organic molecules, magnetism, color, radiation, refraction,
reflection, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure,
force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light
was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.

You know it's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily
conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g.
the cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars,
aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.

But when it comes to light they choke; finding it impossible within
themselves to believe that Genesis just might be consistent in its description
of the creative process. I mean, if all those other things are natural, why
wouldn't light be natural too? In point of fact, without natural light, planet
Earth would become a cold dead world right quick.

NOTE: The interesting thing about the laws of nature is that they're not
absolute laws. No; they are created laws-- created as a companion to the
created cosmos to regulate how the cosmos, with all of its forms of life,
matter, and energy, behaves. Seeing as how God designed and created
those laws, then He knows the secrets to manipulating them in order to
make things in our world behave quite contrary to common sense.

Take for example the floating axe head in 2Kgs 6:5-6. Solid chunks of iron
don't float. That's unnatural. Another example is the fire-proof bush of Ex
3:2. A bush that's impervious to fire is unnatural. It should have flared up
and Moses knew it too but it didn't because God can easily modify the
natural behavior of everything He ever created.

● Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good.
In point of fact, darkness typically represents bad things in the Bible; while
light typically represents good things. It's been an axiom from the very
beginning.

/

just started reading your study on genesis. i have a question concerning get 1:1 and get 1:2. if God created the heavens and the earth in gen !:1 then why does gen 1:2 state that the earth was void and desolate? according to scripture everything God creates is good so how'd the earth become desolate and void?

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:12-14b

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

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

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

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

That's a very popular excuse even still today; like when it turned out that
Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion;
President Bush said he was given some bad information.

The first couple exhibited early-on a very common aspect of human nature
of which all of us are so familiar-- blaming others for the way we act. I once
worked in a boatyard with a very hot tempered man. Previous to his
employment with us, we had another with just about the same temperament
who quit right before the second one signed on. Some time later, the new
guy got irate about something or other and said: Now I know why that other
guy was difficult. You made him that way. (chuckle) Wasn't that a perfectly
natural excuse?

I dated a girl like that once. When I pointed out one day that she was
behaving peevishly; she retorted: "I'm only responding to you". (chuckle)
Ms. Peevish employed the age-old excuse of blaming someone else for the
way she acted when really the blame was just simply her own lack of self
control; which can be roughly defined as inadequate restraint exercised over
one's own impulses, emotions, and/or desires.

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

A marked departure in procedure is very evident here. God gave the humans
an opportunity to defend themselves; but not so with Mr. Serpent. On the
page of scripture, the trial phase was skipped and proceedings went straight
to the sentencing stage just like Osama Bin Laden's assassination. It's
almost as if the Serpent had already discussed with God how it planned to
turn the humans against Him; like when it later moved against Job.

One thing for sure about the Serpent; it is an utterly condemned individual.
Repentance is out of the question and definitely NOT an option. Its destiny
was determined long, long ago.

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels" (Matt
25:41)

The apostle John saw the Serpent's fate; like a video clip from the future.

"And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev
20:10)

It is only too obvious that the Serpent crossed over a line somewhere in the
past and now there is no going back. Humanity is redeemable; but the
Serpent is beyond hope. The scary part is: the Serpent is not only doomed,
but busy making every effort to take as many people down with it as
possible-- like a disgruntled postal worker coming in one day and cutting
loose on everybody with a shotgun.

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

The Hebrew word for "curse" is from 'arar (aw-rar') which means: to
execrate. Webster's defines execrate as: to declare to be evil or detestable;
viz: denounce. Synonyms listed for execrate are: hate, abhor, abominate,
detest, and loathe. When the Bible's God has those kinds of feelings for
someone; they are really in trouble.

But what really caught my attention is that God implied cattle and beasts
would be cursed too. Up ahead we'll see that even the soil would be cursed.
In other words: Adam's progeny would never live on the planet as it was
when their ancient grandparents were created. We today exist on a cursed
planet.

In point of fact, an article in the January 15 edition of Scientific American
magazine said: "Earth is past its prime and the biosphere is nearing its end.
All things considered, our planet is only marginally habitable."

The third chapter began by stating that the Serpent was more cunning than
any of the beasts of the field, a creature that began with a level of dignity
way over and beyond the land animals; but fell to a position of esteem far
below them because of what it did to the Adams family. In other words, the
Serpent is now lower than the lowest thing on the face of the earth.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:14c

● Gen 3:14c . . On your belly shall you crawl and dirt shall you eat all
the days of your life.

Ancient Jews thought maybe the Serpent was originally equipped with feet.

T. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin
thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in
thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. (Targum
Jonathan)

It's probably best to interpret Gen 3:14c as poetic language because I have
never seen, nor yet heard of, a species of snake that eats soil for its food.
True, snakes crawl on their bellies; but they probably always did; because
that's the way they're designed. Some snakes live in trees and others live in
water. Those kinds don't spend a whole lot of time on the ground so not all
snakes are alike. I really don't think snakes crawl because they were
condemned to crawl. Nor was every species of snake condemned; just the
one snake in verse 14.

A person who crawls and eats dirt is typically someone held in very low
regard; in other words: a worm. And "all the days of your life" is saying that
God's low opinion of the Serpent will never be rescinded.

Serpents will eat dirt in the kingdom of God; possibly as a perpetual
reminder of Man's first great mistake.

"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like
the ox, and the serpent's food shall be earth." (Isa 65:25)

Today, snakes don't eat earth, they eat prey. How serpents will survive on
dirt is unclear, unless their digestive system will be changed to that of a
night crawler.

Serpents are never portrayed in the Bible as beneficial to Man. They are
always of the poisonous variety and a serious threat to Man's health and well
being. That will all be different in the kingdom of God.

"A babe shall play over a viper's hole, and an infant pass his hand over an
adder's den. In all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done; for
the land shall be filled with devotion to the Lord as water covers the sea. In
that day, the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a
standard to peoples-- nations shall seek his counsel and his abode shall be
honored." (Isa 11:8-10)

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:15-16

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

I don't think the kind of enmity that God spoke of was the kind where
friends fall out of harmony; but rather, He decreed a sort of poetic justice;
viz: "You caused her downfall; and now I'm going to make it so that she
causes yours."

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

The word for "offspring" is from zera' (zeh'-rah) which is an ambiguous
Hebrew word that technically means: seed; but can also mean a product
and/or a result, and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and
posterity.

For example: the 53rd chapter of Isaiah predicts that Yhvh's servant would
"see seed" in spite of the fact that Isaiah also predicted Yhvh's servant
would die and leave behind no posterity. In that case; zera' can't possibly
mean that Yhvh's servant would see biological seed; but rather, see the
fruits of his labor; which within the context of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah
consists of bearing the sins of many and thus shielding them from the wrath
of God.

Zera' is one of those words that can be either singular or plural, depending
upon the context. Other words like that are deer, sheep, Man, and head (as
in head of livestock). Every kid in a family can be called the parents' zera'
whether there's eight kids or a lone child.

● Gen 3:15c . . He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel.

The Hebrew word translated "he" isn't gender specific. It can mean either
he, she, and/or it. So that Gen 3:15c could be-- and in some translations is
-translated: "It will pound your head, and you will bite its heel". The decision
to use "he" was an arbitrary choice; but seeing as how the Serpent, to my
knowledge, is unable to reproduce itself with biological offspring, I'd
recommend going with "it".

Anyway; from that point onwards the Serpent has made it his mission in life
to prevent Eve's seed from doing the very thing God predicted; eventuating
in Herod's slaughter of Jewish toddlers and Christ's execution.

Who are the Serpent's seed? Liars and Murderers; for starters (John 8:44).
Additional Serpentary seed are people who exist solely to satisfy their
passions and desires (Eph 2:1-3). And people given to rivalry and strife (Jas
3:14-15). Those kinds of seed are seed from the aspect of being products of
the Serpent's handiwork.

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

For many women, the pregnancy 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 childbirth 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 have been no more
painful than doing one's business in the ladies room-- and just as lacking in
danger to mom and baby.

● Gen 3:16c . .Yet your urge shall be for your husband,

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

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

That is probably one of the most hated verses in the whole Bible. Eve's
daughters do not like to be subjugated to and/or dominated by men. It
really goes against their grain; and if the women's suffrage movement that
took place in America's early 1900's were to be thoroughly analyzed, it
would not surprise me that women's right to vote wasn't really an equality
issue: it was a rebellion against male domination.

That rule isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's place in church
too-- all churches.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the
Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the
church." (1Cor 14:33-35)

"Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. I do not
allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain
quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not
Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into
transgression." (1Tim 2:11-15)

How long the Adams lived together sans the imposition of a gender
hierarchy isn't stated; but evidently there was no need for it prior to the tree
incident. But the incident aptly demonstrates that manipulative women can
quickly lead men to ruin in no time at all because it's all too easy for them to
persuade men to behave themselves in ways contrary to their own better
judgment; which reminds me of a really cute line from "My Big Fat Greek
Wedding".

Toula Portokalos complains to her mother: "Ma, dad is so stubborn. What
he says goes. Ah, the man is the head of the house!"

Toula's mom, Maria Portokalos, responds: "Let me tell you something, Toula.
The man is the head, but the woman is the neck; and she can turn the head
any way she wants."

That's humorous but it's not a laughing matter. Many a man has been led
like sheep to the slaughter by women who got them to do things contrary to
their own better judgment.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:17-20

● Gen 3:17a . .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"

A portion of God's gripe with Adam was that he put a subordinate creature's
wishes over and above the wishes of the creature's superior; thus forcing
God to compete for Adam's loyalty; i.e. a rival. 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)

● Gen 3:17b . . Cursed be the ground because of you

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. 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 intensified.

● 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 word for "toil" is
from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means: worrisome-ness.

Webster's defines worrisome-ness as: causing distress or worry or inclined
to worry or fret; viz: Man became anxious, insecure, and perhaps somewhat
melancholy. 'Itstsabown is the very same word used in verse 16 to describe
the physical and emotional discomfort that Eve was doomed to endure
during pregnancy.

● 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: so thorns and thistles already existed prior to the events of
chapter 3. 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 Man needs something a little more substantial.

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

Apparently Adam was a fruitarian at in the beginning, 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, wheat, and rice; et al. In
their natural form-- whole grain --cereals are a rich source of vitamins,
minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. After refinement grains are
pretty much good for nothing but carbs.

● 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 farm, he was going to have to make one of his own, on
his own; 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 Man'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 ground.

● 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: since he was no longer immortal, 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.

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

Though Eve became the mother of all the living she isn't the source of life
for all the living: Adam is.

There's an important parallel to this in the New Testament where Christ is
depicted as the source of eternal life for all the living in him; just as Adam is
the source of human life for all the living in him. (Rom 5:12-21)

There is one "living" that Eve did not produce and that's her own self. She
was constructed from a human tissue sample taken from Adam's body;
ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life
traceable to Eve is traceable to Adam.

NOTE: Most everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that Gen 3:15's
prediction refers to Christ; so we are on safe ground to believe that he
obtained his human life from Adam too just the same as Eve and all the rest
of us. (Luke 3:23-38)

The word for "mother" is from 'em (ame) which can mean a mother in an
immediate family, or the matriarch of a blood line, or the mother (as the
rootstock) of an entire nation.

The word for "Eve" is from Chavvah (khav-vaw') and means: life-giver.

Genesis says Adam named his wife Eve because she was the life-giver of all
the living, not just a portion of the living. Some people have a problem with
that. They just can't believe she's everybody's mother.

According to the Bible, humanity wasn't created in groups nor in swarms like
the other nephesh. The human race was created in its entirety a singular,
solo, male specimen. Every human being since, including the first woman,
came from the constitutional elements of that one lone male.

"He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of
the earth." (Acts 17:26-28)

NOTE: The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific 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 it's
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 ancestor; which of course is no surprise to
Bible students.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:21-22

● 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, and the words
kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) 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 unbearably uncomfortable around their creator in the 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-- and actually, a way they would never
have thought of all by themselves because nobody had ever killed an animal
before and who would have guessed their skins could be used for clothing
until God showed them how?

The point to note is that the clothing 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 for free, out of kindness; and free of charge.

I believe God went to all that trouble because He didn't want anything
hampering His association with humans. In other words, Adam's felt-shame
over undress was a barrier between himself and his creator so God showed
him a really good way to overcome it: a way that greatly enhanced Adam's
limited survival skills.

● Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that the man has become
as one of us

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But
that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". In other words:
humanity didn't come from the hand of God as an equal; i.e. though
humanity was given the status of divine beings; humans aren't actual
deities-- gods are impervious to death, humans die like flies.

"I said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless
you will die like men." (Ps 82:6-7)

Seeing as how humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then we're safe to
conclude that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made itself a deity.
Unfortunately, humanity, as a deity, isn't God's associate, rather, His
competitor; i.e. a rival sheik so to speak.

From the limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's
fairly easy to make one's self a deity; it's only necessary to rebel against
constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with the
laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power, especially humanity's creator.

● Gen 3:22b . . discerning good and evil,

Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed
discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and
Heb 5:13-14)

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

Adam contracted mortality from the other tree. Had God allowed him access
to the tree of life, it's fruit would've healed the mortality infecting his body
and restored it to immortality.

The thing is: God predicted Adam's demise; so in order to ensure that the
prediction came to pass; God had to cut off his access to the tree of life;
which is a pretty interesting tree seeing as how it's not only an elixir, but
also a remedy for whatever ails you. (Rev 22:2)

NOTE: The Old Testament Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always
indicate infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz:
indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 3:23-24

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

This is the Bible's first mention of cherubim. They show up now and again in
the Old Testament upwards of 90 times. Their description as per Ezek 1:1
28 and Ezek 10:1-22 suggests that they may be symbolic visions rather than
realities.

Another classification of celestial beings are the seraphim (e.g. Isa 6:2).

The cherubim and its sword blocked not only Adam's access to the tree of
life, but everybody else's access too; and I believe for a very practical
reason.

One of the societal problems associated with STDs is the development of
treatments for those kinds of diseases. The treatments are not bad per se;
the problem is that knowing that there's treatments emboldens people to
indulge in immorality.

In other words: had God allowed humanity continued access to the garden,
no doubt they would have included the forbidden fruit in their diets on a
regular basis because there would be little to fear from its effects due to the
ready availability of fruit from the tree of life. They would, as it's said, have
their cake and eat it too.

So, everyone was doomed to an eventual expiration no matter whether rich
or poor, young or old, male or female, righteous or unrighteous, holy or
unholy, pious or impious, vegetarian or meat eater. Even Jesus would have
eventually died of natural causes had he not been crucified. If the human
body-- as God created it --is to remain strong and healthy indefinitely, it has
got to have that tree in its diet; but not to happen because God wants
everyone to die at least once. (Heb 9:27)

NOTE: I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its
flaming sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people
could go and see for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it.
But for some reason, there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to
that area. Well; were that cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in
our day, I should think it would draw more people to it than even Mecca
because it would definitely be a wonder to behold, but I suspect that back
then people were afraid of it.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:1

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

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

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

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

God wrapped creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and rested after that.
Not because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that time, the
human race was all done too. Everyone since then has just been a
reproduction of Adam.

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

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

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

No act of creation takes place when babies are conceived. No, man's
creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely
reproductions of Adam via the blessing of fertility.

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

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

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

Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head.
But alas, Cain was just an ordinary kid; he wasn't the Angel of The Lord.

NOTE: The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't
especially indicate a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and
essentially means a dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who
speaks for another; e.g. a courier and/or an ambassador. The New
Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty much the
same thing.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:2

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

Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) and means: emptiness or futility.
Figuratively: something transitory and unsatisfactory. Poor Eve; she's only
had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. Cain was her very
first pregnancy. It was a new, exciting adventure. Well, Abel's birth was no
big deal. He was redundant; just another bun in the oven. The first one is
the best. After that, they're all Same-O, Same-O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) or tse'own (tseh
one') which mean: a flock; which Webster's defines as a group of birds or
mammals assembled or herded together. So you can see there that "sheep"
is an arbitrary choice of words. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy
wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than sheep; but I won't argue
the point. Sheep will do.

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

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

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:3-5a

● Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to
The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the
choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the
prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar
and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given
religion. (cf. Heb 11:4)

● Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to
Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city
barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or
thoughtless, nor did she neglect him or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang,
didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed,
drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women. He was very religious
and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the
rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a
predatory lender, wasn't racist, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest
investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a
cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did
he associate with the wrong crowd. The man did everything a model citizen
is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected.

It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the
men's offerings and totally miss the role that the nature of the men
themselves played in their worship; in other words: they assume Cain was
rejected because his offering was bloodless and they attempt to justify their
theory by citing the below:

"It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than
Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a righteous
man." (Heb 11:4)

The focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the offerings
because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is actually upon
faith and righteousness; viz: Abel was a man of both faith and righteousness
whereas his brother wasn't. In a nutshell: Cain's association with God was
strictly via ritual.

It's not uncommon for John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer to associate with
God like that. On Sunday they go through all the proper motions; while the
rest of the week they think, feel, speak, and act like secular humanists with
little concern as to how God might feel about their conduct.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:5b-7a

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

Cain was a whole lot worse than distressed. He was blazing mad. The word
for "distressed" is from charah (khaw-raw') and means: to glow or grow
warm; figuratively (usually) to blaze up, of anger, zeal, jealousy. Cain is
actually in a passionate rage over this and certainly in no mood for a lecture.

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

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

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

That is an irrevocable principle, and comes out very early in the Bible
because it is so foundational to humanity's association with its creator. Well;
Abel did do right and that's why his gift is said to be offered in faith.

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

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

Perhaps the classic example is the one below.

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure
in burnt offerings." (Ps 51:16)

When David wrote that; he had only just committed the capital crimes of
adultery and premeditated murder. There was just no way that God was
going to accept his sacrifices and offerings on top of that; and David knew it
too.

The principle didn't go away. It's still the Lord's way of doing business with
people; even with Christians.

"God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have
fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but
if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with
another." (1John 1:5-7)

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:7b-8

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

This is the very first instance in the Bible of the word "sin". The Hebrew word
is chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw') and/or chatta'th (khat-tawth') which are
ambiguous words that technically mean an offense; as in repeat offender. In
other words; not just an occasional slip-up, but a life style; viz: a habit.

Whatever it was that God found displeasing in Cain's life at the time of the
minchah disaster was moved to the back burner at this point because
something far worse is looming on Cain's horizon; and it wasn't his kid
brother's murder; no, it's something far more fatal to one's spiritual welfare.

It's a perpetual unwillingness to talk things over with God and get some
things straightened out between the two of you. This is not just serious— it's
extremely serious and apparently quite common among people with Cain-ish
attitudes.

"But they refused to pay attention, and turned a stubborn shoulder and
stopped their ears from hearing. And they made their hearts like flint so that
they could not hear the law and the words which the Lord of legions had
sent by His spirit through the former prophets" (Zech 7:11-12)

That attitude is one of the very reasons why some people are sent to hell.

"This is the condemnation: that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For
everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest
his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light,
that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (John
3:19-21)

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

This is the first mention of self control in the bible. In other words; yes, God
created humanity with the capability to choose the wrong paths for itself,
and the capability to choose the wrong behavior too; but that's only half the
story. God also created humanity with the capability to choose the right
paths for itself, and the capability to choose the right behavior.

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

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

No doubt Cain was very jealous of his kid brother's on-going popularity with
God. Poor Abel lost his life just because he was a pious man.

"Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother.
And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his
brother's were righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world
hates you." (1John 3:12-13)

One of the boys involved in the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School
shooting incident shot and killed a girl in the cafeteria just because she
believed in God. Isn't that amazing? That boy was nothing in the world but a
twentieth century Cain with a gun.

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

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

How Cain planned to explain Abel's death to his parents isn't stated. He
couldn't very well blame it on a carnivorous predator since man and beast
were on friendly terms prior to the Flood. It's my guess he set up the crime
scene to make it look like an accident.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:9-12

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

The Hebrew word for "keeper" indicates, in this case, a guardian; viz:
responsibility for someone or something put in one's care; for example: Abel
was a keeper of the sheep: a shepherd. (Gen 4:2)

Cain worshipped the True God, same as his brother, and he practiced the
very same rituals; yet responded to his maker's simple question with a lie
and a sarcastic rejoinder. Those who are the Serpent's progeny often act like
that because the Serpent's progeny have a Serpent's tongue.

"You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you want to
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his
own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." (John 8:44-45)

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

The Hebrew word for "cries out" is from tsa'aq (tsaw-ak') and means: to
shriek; which can be defined as a wild, involuntary scream.

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

In civil law, it's handy to produce the corpus delicti in a homicide case
because it's very useful for proving the reality of a death, and for
establishing the cause, and the time, of its occurrence. It's interesting that
God didn't produce Abel's body for evidence. He could have, but instead
relied upon the voice of his body's blood. So a murder victim's blood can be
introduced as a witness in the courts of Heaven. That is very interesting.

Abel's blood accuses. In contrast, Christ's blood defends (e.g. Rom 5:6-11,
Heb 12:24, and 1Pet 1:18-19). That's a whole lot more to people's
advantage.

● Gen 4:11 . .Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground
which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your
hand.

The original curse upon the soil reduced its agrarian productivity. But the
curse upon Cain brought his agrarian productivity to a complete and
irrevocable end.

● Gen 4:12 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to
you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.

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

Cain went on to become a very hungry, very overworked man. Wherever he
tried to farm, the ground would respond in such a way as to act infertile. The
curse was leveled right at his diet and the source of his food. Up till now,
Cain had been a successful, independent farmer. But no amount of
agricultural wisdom would ever restore his independence, nor his once green
thumb no matter how hard he tried to overcome it. Cain had crossed over a
line and there was no going back.

Since Cain could no longer sustain himself by farming, it would be difficult to
settle down and build himself a home; so he was forced to become
migratory and forage for seasonal foods like the uncivilized beast that he
was. It was poetic justice. The punishment sure fit his personality. If he was
going to act like a brute, then he deserved to live like one.

Though the Bible doesn't say; it would seem to me a reasonable assumption
that the curse upon Cain extended to his posterity (cf. Num 14:18). Up
ahead we'll see that they became renowned as a commercial/industrial
society rather than agrarian. As time went by, and the Adams family
multiplied and spread out; Cain's community no doubt traded with them
using income from the sale of manufactured goods to barter for the foods
that they themselves were unable to grow. Dependence upon imported food
may not be ideal; but it's certainly better than going hungry.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:13-16

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

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

Q: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he
executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for
murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num
35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom
4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law
can't be enforced until after it's enacted, not even divine law; which is
precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, prosecute Cain for murder.

● Gen 4:14a . . Since You have banished me this day from the soil,
and I must avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on
earth--

Who said he must avoid God's presence? Somebody can be a ceaseless
wanderer without losing touch with God; I mean, after all: He's everywhere
at once. (Ps 139:7-12)

Estrangement was Cain's decision, just as it was Judas' decision to break
with Jesus. Both men could've turned it around if they wanted; but didn't.
Cain walked out on God of his own volition. Now he would face life very
insecure.

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

I'm curious as to who Cain feared might slay him. The Adams family were
the only people on earth at that time. It appears to me that Cain did not
believe his father Adam was the only man that God created.

● Gen 4:15a . .The Lord said to him: I promise, if anyone kills Cain,
sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him.

Humanistic senses of right and wrong demand that Cain pay for murdering
his kid brother. But up to that point in God's association with humanity, He
had not yet announced any edicts related to criminal justice. So then, were
somebody to go after Cain and execute him for the crime of murder, they
would be nothing less than a lynch mob taking the law into their own hands;
which is clearly a very serious thing to do.

● Gen 4:15b . . And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who
met him should kill him.

The nature of Cain's mark is totally unknown. However, the "mark" wasn't so
people would hoot at Cain wherever he went. It was a "No Hunting" sign so
future generations of the Adams' family would know the real Cain from
imposters who might be inclined to give themselves a sort of diplomatic
immunity by impersonating Abel's brother.

God allows ignorance as an excuse; to a point. However, information creates
responsibility. When a person knows an act is wrong, and goes ahead and
does it anyway, they are in much deeper trouble than one who did not know
that a particular act was wrong.

No one had been forbidden to kill Abel, nor forbidden to kill any other man
for that matter. But soon it would become widespread public knowledge that
God strictly forbade killing Cain. Therefore, anyone who ignored God would
pay dearly for knowingly, and willfully, ignoring His wishes; just as Adam
died for tasting the forbidden fruit because the tasting was willful, and done
in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence. (cf. Num 15:30
31, Matt 11:20-24, Luke 12:47-48, Heb 10:26-27)

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

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

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

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

Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Well, that would be like
throwing good money after bad. God had already tried at Gen 4:7; and like
Einstein once remarked: Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing the
same way over and over again and expecting a different result. Well; God's
not insane; He knows when to say when. Sadly, there are people for whom
it can be said: That was the last straw.

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

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

That Psalm's encouragement is restricted to "those who fear Him". The Cains
of this world are of course eo ipso excluded.

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

The Hebrew word for "Nod" is from nowd (node) and means: wandering,
vagrancy or exile. Precisely how Nod got its name, or where it was located is
unknown. The only other place in the entire Old Testament where nowd is
found is at Ps 56:9.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis 4:17-19

● Gen 4:17a . . Cain knew his wife,

Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was
constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In
other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as
Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life,
rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.

After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped creation and has been on
sabbatical every since.

According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.

"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the
living." (Gen 3:20)

Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.

NOTE: Seeing as how Eve was the mother of all living, then she was the
mother of Christ; ergo: if Mary was the mother of God, then so was Eve.

An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three
sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's,
and Japheth's children married amongst themselves-- brothers with sisters
and/or cousins with cousins.

"Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and
Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth
was populated." (Gen 9:18-19)

Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof
of it is pre-historic human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930,
and Noah to 950.

According to Acts 17:26 it was the creator's deliberate design that all human
life descend from a solo specimen. Well, in order for that to happen, people
had to sleep with close relatives in the beginning.

Now as to the "sin" of incest; according to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal
3:17, Bible laws enacted ex post facto are too late; viz: law can't be
enforced until after it's enacted. Well, laws forbidding incest weren't codified
until the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

● Gen 4:17b . . and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then
founded a city, and named the city after his son Enoch.

The "city" probably wasn't the kind of city we're used to thinking. The word
for it is from 'iyr (eer) and simply means a community-- a place guarded by
waking or a watch --in the widest sense; even of a mere encampment or
post.

Whether Cain actually lived in a permanent settlement is doubtful since he
was stuck with vagrancy and wandering. Cain's city was very likely nothing
more than a rudimentary village like the towns in the Old West and the
Klondike that grew up around rail heads and mining camps.

Some of those were little more than a village of tents, and that's probably all
that Enochville amounted to. Just a nomadic assembly of Cain's clan where
they could pool their resources, and watch each other's back as they
wandered from place to place in the land of Nod searching for sustenance.

● Gen 4:18-19 . .To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begot Mehujael,
and Mehujael begot Methusael, and Methusael begot Lamech.
Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah,
and the name of the other was Zillah.

Adah is from 'Adah (aw-daw') and means: ornament. It's not unusual for
people to name their little girls after jewelry like Pearl, Ruby, Jade, Sapphire,
and Amber. Zillah is from Tsillah (tsil-law') which is derived from tsel (tsale)
and means: shade (or shadow), whether literal or figurative. Shade is a
good thing in sunny locales so Zillah's name may have been associated with
shelter, protection, peace, serenity, and rest-- as in Song 2:3.

Lamech's marriages are the very first incidence of polygamy in the Bible,
and I have yet to see a passage where God either approved or disapproved
of it other than the restrictions imposed upon New Testament church
officers. (e.g. 1Tim 3:2, 1Tim 3:12, and Titus 1:6)

Aside from the obvious sensual benefits men derive from harems; polygamy
does have its practical side. The gestation period for human beings is nine
months. At that rate, it would take a man many years to build up his clan to
a respectable size. But with multiple wives, he could speed things up
considerably. In primitive cultures, large families are very influential, and
their numbers crucial to survival and self preservation.

"Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born to a man in his youth.
Happy is the man who fills his quiver with them; they shall not be put to
shame when they contend with the enemy in the gate." (Ps 127:4-5)

/

 

[Jay Ross]

-
Genesis 1:1

The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to
Moses. Seeing as he penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's conceivable that
Moses also penned Genesis; but in reality, nobody really knows.

Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410 BC;
which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's geological history-- a
mere 3,400 years ago.

Genesis may in fact be the result of several contributors beginning as far
back as Adam himself; who would certainly know more about the creation
than anybody, and who entertained no doubts whatsoever about the
existence of an intelligent designer since he knew the Creator himself like a
next door neighbor.

That would explain why the book begins with an in-your-face theological
account of the origin of the cosmos, rather than waste words with an
apologetic argument to convince agnostics that a supreme being exists. I
mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its objects, and all of its
forms of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to convince the agnostic;
then the agnostic is pretty much beyond reach.

As time went by, others like Seth and Noah would add their own experiences
to the record, and then Abraham his, Isaac his, Jacob his, and finally Judah
or one of his descendants completing the record with Joseph's burial.

Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ
himself authenticated its Divine inspiration by referring to it in his own
teachings. (e.g. Matt 19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51,
Luke 17:26-29 & 32, John 7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)

● Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The word for "God" is from the Hebrew 'elohiym (el-o-heem'). It's a plural
word and means, ordinarily: gods. 'Elohiym isn't really the creator's personal
moniker, rather, a nondescript designation that pertains to all sorts of gods,
along with, and including, the supreme one.

The "beginning" is mentioned again at 1John 1:1 which I believe safe to
assume compliments John 1:1-2

● Gen 1:1b . . created the heaven and earth--

The word for "heaven" is from the Hebrew word shamayim (shaw-mah'-yim)
and means: to be lofty; i.e. the sky; perhaps alluding to the visible arch in
which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial
bodies reside, i.e. the universe.

So the word "heaven" is ambiguous and can mean the breathable air in our
planet's atmosphere as well as the stratosphere and the vast celestial
regions of space.

The Hebrew word for "earth" is 'erets (eh'-rets) which is yet another of the
Bible's many ambiguous words. It can indicate dry land, a country, and/or
the whole planet.

Anyway; Genesis 1:1 merely reveals the origin of the cosmos without going
into detail. It's a "Once upon a time" sort of statement with a story to follow.

/

The first verse of Genesis can be simply stated as

"First God created the heavens and the Earth"

or to put it another way

"First God created everything in the heavens and the earth"

 

[Jay Ross]

-
Genesis 1:2-4a

● Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

That statement reveals the earth's condition prior to the creation of an
energy that would make it possible for its particles to coalesce into
something coherent.

Curiously, scientists have not yet been able to figure out what gives particles
their mass. In point of fact, the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider was
constructed for the specific purpose of finding a special particle called the
Higgs Boson (a.k.a. the God particle) because it's believed that the Higgs
particle "creates" a field that somehow grants other particles their mass.

● Gen 1:2b . . and darkness was over the surface of the deep

This particular "deep" I believe can be safely assumed to be the void; viz:
the seemingly infinite space housing the known universe.

● Gen 1:2c . . and Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The "waters" at this point in the earth's history probably weren't the liquid
commonly known as H2O. It's just a "place-holder" name; viz: a convenient
label for the colossal soup of freshly created particles that would eventually
be utilized to construct the universe's physical properties.

The Spirit's job, therefore, was as a sort of cattle wrangler circling the herd
and keeping all the various particles together so they didn't drift away and
get lost because as yet there were no forces at work keeping things
together.

● Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

The creation of light was a very, very intricate process. First God had to
create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific
properties, including mass. Then He had to invent the laws of nature to
govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of,
other kinds of matter in order to generate electromagnetic radiation.

Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of lengths
and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons. And though
light has no detectable mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also quite
invisible. For example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and you can
see the Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of the Sun's
light is visible in the void between them and that's because light isn't
matter; it's energy.

The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate electromagnetic
radiation also make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice,
soil, rain, life, centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy,
gravity, atoms, organic molecules, magnetism, color, radiation, refraction,
reflection, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure,
force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light
was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.

You know it's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily
conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g.
the cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars,
aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.

But when it comes to light they choke; finding it impossible within
themselves to believe that Genesis just might be consistent in its description
of the creative process. I mean, if all those other things are natural, why
wouldn't light be natural too? In point of fact, without natural light, planet
Earth would become a cold dead world right quick.

NOTE: The interesting thing about the laws of nature is that they're not
absolute laws. No; they are created laws-- created as a companion to the
created cosmos to regulate how the cosmos, with all of its forms of life,
matter, and energy, behaves. Seeing as how God designed and created
those laws, then He knows the secrets to manipulating them in order to
make things in our world behave quite contrary to common sense.

Take for example the floating axe head in 2Kgs 6:5-6. Solid chunks of iron
don't float. That's unnatural. Another example is the fire-proof bush of Ex
3:2. A bush that's impervious to fire is unnatural. It should have flared up
and Moses knew it too but it didn't because God can easily modify the
natural behavior of everything He ever created.

● Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good.
In point of fact, darkness typically represents bad things in the Bible; while
light typically represents good things. It's been an axiom from the very
beginning.

/

Genesis 1:2b is all about the abyss, or the bottomless pit and in Revelation 20:14 we are told that "hades" or the abyss will be thrown into the lake of Fire along with Death which is the result of sin.