The Forbidden Fruit

[Webers_Home]

-
● Gen 2:16-17 . . 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.

● 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. In other words: half-truths contain a kernel of truth but not the
whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Serpent somehow knew that the forbidden fruit itself wasn't lethal, i.e.
Eve wouldn't die from eating it like hemlock or a Night Cap mushroom. He
was 100% right about that. Her death, though related to eating the fruit,
would come upon her from a very different direction; one that Eve
apparently never suspected; though it was right under her nose the whole
time.

/

 

[Helen]

Watching this thread. :)

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● Gen 2:16-17 . . 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.

The first thing to point out is that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam 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 natural rather
spiritual.

As far as can be known from the Bible, the tree of life was located only in
the garden and nowhere else on Earth; plus the Hebrew word for "garden"
indicates that Adam's food source was fenced; i.e. walled, no doubt to
protect it from foraging critters.

Both those points suggest very strongly to me that only human life was
meant to continue indefinitely; viz: humanity is the only species that God
created with the potential for immortality; as a result, expiration was
common in Adam's world by means of plants, birds, bugs, and beasts so that
"death" wasn't a strange new word in Adam's vocabulary; i.e. God didn't
have to take a moment and define it for him.

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

You can just see Eve's eyes brighten from the sugar rush as she realized the
Serpent was right after all-- she didn't drop dead. So the woman brought it
home and convinced her man to try it too.

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

Eve didn't drop dead the instant she tasted the fruit, and neither did Adam.
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 catch is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit.
God's exact words were "in the day"

According to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can
easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz: the
day of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit; and according to
Rom 5:12-19 the day of everybody else's death began at that moment too;
making human death universal regardless of age, race, gender, or class
distinctions.

/

 

[Dan57]

Genesis 2:17 says; "thou shalt surely die", but the better Hebrew translation reads; "dying thou dost die". So it doesn't imply that they would drop dead the moment they ate the fruit.. "Dying" is a process, and in the day they consumed the forbidden fruit, it would ultimately bring about their death. We all begin dying the moment we're born.

 

[truthquest]

2 Peter 3:8 Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

● Gen 2:16-17 . . 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.

 

[Jay Ross]

The second death is first mentioned in Genesis 2:17 and is then scattered throughout the Bible right up and until Revelation 21:8. Sadly, the Jewish scholars did not recognise that Genesis 2:17 was talking about a Second Death which comes into play after the GWT Judgement when those nor deemed to be righteous are cast into the Lake of fire which is called "the death, the second."

The second death is also referred to in Romans 5:12.

Romans 5:12: - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and the second death through sin, and thus the second death spread to all men, because all sinned — {My paraphrase of this verse is highlighted in bold colour.}

Sadly, our English translations is very lacking in this area and have followed the traditions of the Jewish scholars and have translated the first "mowt", which has been generally translated as "die" elsewhere in the OT, as "surely." They then translate the "maamuwt" which is the "second death", simply as just "die."

The Biblical message of the candidacy of many people for the second death through sin at the time of the GWTJ is therefore lost and difficult to explain when it is hidden from view throughout the various English translations.

Shalom

 

[Dcopymope]

● Gen 2:16-17 . . 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.

The first thing to point out is that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam 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 natural rather
spiritual.

It's been proposed that Rom 5:12 indicates there was no death of any kind
on Earth till Adam tasted the forbidden fruit. But that's not a safe
assumption because as far as can be known from the Bible, the tree of life
was located only in the garden and nowhere else on Earth; plus the Hebrew
word for "garden" indicates that Adam's food source was fenced; i.e. walled,
no doubt to protect it from foraging critters.

Both those points suggest very strongly to me that only human life was
meant to continue indefinitely; i.e. humanity is the only species that God
created with the potential for immortality; as a result, death and
putrefaction were common sights in Adam's world by means of dying plants,
birds, bugs, and beasts so that "death" wasn't a strange new word in his
vocabulary.

Do you have any scripture backing this up in any way? I don't recall God ever stating that animal meat would at all be a part of the creatures diet before the fall. It states quite the contrary in fact.

(Genesis 1:30-31) "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. {31} And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

When Jesus died, Paul makes it quite clear that he didn't just die for humanities redemption, but for the whole creation because without Jesus, you don't have a new heaven and earth.

(Colossians 1:18-20) "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. {19} For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; {20} And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

So whats the point in every creature being redeemed by his atonement if there was death before the fall for animals anyway? This is a contradiction, lacking basic 0's and 1's. If what you say is true, then why is Isaiah when giving a description of the character and extent of the millennial kingdom under Christ saying that all animals will have one big group hug, all returning back to the diet of a herbivore as it was before the fall?

(Isaiah 11:6-9) "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. {7} And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. {8} And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. {9} They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."

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

You can just see Eve's eyes brighten from the sugar rush as she realized the
Serpent was right after all-- she didn't drop dead. So the woman brought it
home and convinced her man to try it too.

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

Eve didn't drop dead the instant she tasted the fruit, and neither did Adam.
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 catch is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit.
God's exact words were "in the day"

According to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can
easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz: the
day of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit; and to ensure that
his demise was inevitable, God blocked access to the tree of life; i.e. God
didn't have to smite Adam so he'd die; no, all God had to do was deny Adam
certain essential nutrients found only in the tree of life and let nature take
its course.

NOTE: According to Rom 5:12-19 the day of everybody's death began
simultaneously with the day of Adam's death.

Well, I'm not understanding the 'discrepancy' you see in the text. Its simple, when he ate the fruit, the knowledge of sin entered the world, and it is by this disease that death is brought upon all flesh. What is the problem? Is this 'discrepancy' still coming from the assumption that death actually did occur before the fall for animals?

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● Rom 8:20 . . . For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will,
but because of Him who subjected it; in hope that the creation itself also will
be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the
children of God.

Corruption takes a variety of forms; it doesn't necessarily refer to the
putrefaction of something dead.

In the beginning, the cosmos-- with all of its forms of life, matter, and
energy --was at peace. Neither man nor beast were a danger to each other;
the world was a very safe place to live. The first couple didn't even need any
clothing to protect themselves from insect bites.

That all changed with the forbidden fruit incident. Because of that; this world
is no longer a safe place to live; but the day is coming when peace will be
fully restored.

● Isa 2:4 . . They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall
they learn war any more.

● Isa 11:6-8 . .The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie
down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze; their
young will lie down together; and the lion will eat straw like the ox. And the
nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put
his hand on the viper's den.

Of particular interest to me is the prediction "neither shall they learn war
any more" which signals to me the end of martial arts seeing as how there
will be no need know something about self defense.

● Isa 9:7 . . Of the increase of his peace there will be no end.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, 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 exposure; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. 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 buff.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure 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 morality; 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's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their critic like
a man taken leave of his senses.

/

 

[Helen]

Genesis 2:17 says; "thou shalt surely die", but the better Hebrew translation reads; "dying thou dost die". So it doesn't imply that they would drop dead the moment they ate the fruit.. "Dying" is a process, and in the day they consumed the forbidden fruit, it would ultimately bring about their death. We all begin dying the moment we're born.

Amen..well said. Good post. :)

 

[Dcopymope]

Corruption takes a variety of forms; it doesn't necessarily refer to the
putrefaction of something dead.

In the beginning, the cosmos-- with all of its forms of life, matter, and
energy --was at peace. Neither man nor beast were a danger to each other;
the world was a very safe place to live. The first couple didn't even need any
clothing to protect themselves from insect bites.

That all changed with the forbidden fruit incident. Because of that; this world
is no longer a safe place to live; but the day is coming when peace will be
fully restored.

Actually, as far as mans relationship with animals are concerned, that didn't even change until after the flood. It wasn't until after the flood that God himself changed the diet of humanity, and I presume that of animals as well.

Of particular interest to me is the prediction "neither shall they learn war
any more" which signals to me the end of martial arts seeing as how there
will be no need know something about self defense.

Not sure about martial arts, but its every nations armed forces and their ability to lay each other to waste that is of particular concern. Jesus Christ will have none of that foolishness, no more attack choppers and fighter jets, or stealth bombers, or tomahawk cruise missiles. Anyone looking to have any type of career in the military can kiss all that goodbye when the Lord returns.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● Gen 3:6-7 . . She took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her
husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened.

According to 1Tim 2:14, Eve was in violation of Gen 2:16-17 when she
tasted the fruit. But curiously, her eyes weren't opened right away. In other
words: up till Adam tasted the fruit, its effects upon Eve's health were nil;
and in point of fact, there's really no good reason to believe that Adam's
eyes were opened the very instant he tasted the fruit; it's effect upon him
may have been delayed too.

● Gen 3:7b . . and they perceived that they were naked;

Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and bad kicked in with an
intuitive sense of propriety; which Webster's defines as the quality or state
of being proper or suitable, i.e. conformity to what is socially acceptable in
conduct or speech.

In other words: Adam and his wife took it upon themselves to initiate a
dress code due to finding themselves slaves to a humanistic conscience so
powerful that even if Almighty God himself told them it was okay to remain
disrobed they would not have believed Him; and even had they believed
Him, they would still put something on because at this point, they were
embarrassed.

● Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves
loincloths.

But why not bosom coverings? Why not derrière coverings too? Why only
loin coverings? Well it's not too hard to figure out is it? They developed a
guilt complex over sex and the human body that continues to this day; and I
sincerely believe that complex is the very reason why so many people feel
that the male libido is naughty and sinful. (Those same people rarely, if
ever, condemn the female libido.)

Some say there were no agents in the fruit to cause the changes in human
nature that occurred in the Adams. But I'm not so sure. According to an
article in the Oct 8, 2011 issue of the Oregonian; new research reveals that
some, if not all, the plants we eat actually change the behavior of human
genes in ways never before imagined.

A new study led by Chen-Yu Zhang, of Nanjing University, found that
fragments of plant genetic material survive digestion and wind up swimming
in the bloodstreams of humans and cows. Those tiny strands of RNA that
somehow make it through the toxic acids and enzymes in the gut come from
ice and the plant family that includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower
and cabbage. Zhang found that they can muffle or amplify human gene
expression in various ways. The discovery could lead to ways of designing
plants that act as medicine or even change our own genetic structure for the
better (or the worse).

And it's well known what happens to kids when they move into adolescence.
Hormonal chemicals kick in, and their childish innocence vanishes; right out
the window. They lose interest in kid's toys and begin to take an interest in
things more appropriate for their age; including a very noticeable interest in
themselves, and in the opposite sex; and most especially in what others
think about them. In other words: they become self-conscious; which
Webster's defines as: uncomfortably aware of oneself as an object of the
observation of others.

Those adolescent changes aren't miraculous changes-- they're totally
natural, hormonally induced, organic changes. So if kids undergo a natural
kind of change because of the chemicals generated by the glands in their
own bodies, then there is good reason to believe that the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil actually did contain something that caused Adam
and his wife to morph and develop an intuitive sense of propriety; and that
"sense" can't help but influence people's interpretation of Matt 5:28. In other
words they want male libido to be naughty because their forbidden-fruit
intuition compels them to "feel" it's naughty.

At any rate, the pending dialogue, between God and Man in the next few
verses, implies that God himself had no hand in making those two people
change. On the page of scripture, their altered human nature is directly
related to the fruit and to nothing else.

So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a complex spiritual
explanation, I suggest it would be better to stick with the biological one and
let it go at that.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● 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.

● Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among the
trees of the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man and said to him: Where
are you?

Since God is omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to mean: Adam;
come out, come out, wherever you are!

● Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was
afraid because I was naked, so I hid.

Adam wasn't totally disrobed; just partially. But even that degree of undress
lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong.
But the thing to note is Adam's unease in the presence of God while lacking
what he thought in his own mind to be appropriate clothing.

This incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer-- normally
comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men --would want to put
something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the
dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)

● Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked? Did you
eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?

In other words: 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 intuition? Not from their maker, that's for sure; no,
they got it from the fruit of that tree. Unfortunately, their newly acquired
moral compass was unreliable; the reason being they got it from nature, viz:
it was a natural sense of right and wrong rather than God-given; therefore it
couldn't be trusted to guide them into spiritual absolutes.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

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

The Hebrew word for "pangs" is '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: anxiety, insecurity, and perhaps
melancholy.

For many women, the preggers stage of motherhood is often characterized
by bloating, illness, nausea, depression, anxiety, insecurity, and irritability.
For them, pregnancy is more like a curse than the intended blessing of Gen
1:28.

● Gen 3:16b . . in pain shall you bear children.

It's difficult to imagine child bearing 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 caused no more
discomfort than doing one's business in the ladies room-- and just as lacking
in danger to mom and baby.

The thing to note is: this particular punishment was unexpected; viz: it isn't
specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for tasting the forbidden
fruit.

Something else that's notable is that the tree's chemistry played no role in
Eve's new circumstances. God said "I will make yada, yada, yada, yada". In
other words; the pangs and pains of child bearing are via the hand of God
rather than the hand of nature.

There's more.

● Gen 3:16c . .Your desire 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 sex outside the bonds of
matrimony.

And then there's this:

● 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; which of course is to be
expected in a world gone mad with evil.

Gen 3:16d 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." (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." (1Tim 2:11-15)

How long the Adams cohabited sans the imposition of a gender hierarchy
isn't stated; but evidently there was no need for it prior to the forbidden fruit
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 the movie "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]

-
● 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 creature's wishes over
and above the wishes of the creature's superior; thus forcing God to
compete for Adam's affections; 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.

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

That was unexpected; it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a
consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit.

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 would begin to intensify.

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

Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him tending the
garden. But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The word for "toil" is
from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means the very same thing as it did in
Gen 3:16.

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

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

God finished the entire cosmos in six days; and no more creating took place
after that because He's been on sabbatical ever since day 7: 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 humanity needs something quite a bit more nutritious.

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

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

Whereas the Adams before had a beautiful productive farm complete with
orchards that required minimal maintenance, they became faced with
stubborn soil that needs plowing, sowing, and weeding. Very few natural
grains exist abundantly in nature. These days; if he wants them in any
sizable amount, Man has to farm.

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

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

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

It's often assumed that Adam was created immortal; but no so. Adam was
created an air-breathing creature. Smother him and he'd die. Hold his head
underwater and he'd die. But as long as Adam supplemented his diet with
nutrients form the tree of life, he'd not die of natural causes.

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. The
human body came from the ground; but according to Gen 2:7, human
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.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

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

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

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

The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified; the Hebrew words
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, even in the
semi-buff, and that was principally the reason they hid from the Lord when
He came calling. However, fig leaves aren't very durable; they're merely an
expedient. God showed them a much better way-- actually a way they would
never have thought of all by themselves because who would have guessed
animal hides 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.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that 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!

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.

The thing is: God predicted Adam's passing; 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 a man. (Rev 22:2)

The tree of life didn't contain enough nutrients to give Adam eternal life. It
couldn't even give him immortality. But the tree could have given Adam
perpetual youth; but even then, only so long as he supplemented his diet
with regular doses of it; for example: I have an under-active thyroid gland
that if left untreated would eventuate in my untimely death. But so long as I
continue to supplement my diet with a prescribed daily dose of a medication
called levoxyl, I can expect to live to a normal old age.

However; I can't get by on just one dose of levoxyl, nor can I take a lifetime
of doses all at once. Levoxyl has to be taken a little at a time on a daily
basis. What I'm saying is: as long as Adam supplemented his diet with
nutrients from that tree on a regular basis; he wouldn't die of natural
causes; thus he had the potential to remain forever twenty-one. But that
was not to be since God had already decreed that Adam die for eating the
forbidden fruit.

● 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.

People could probably go and see that cherubim and its sword for
themselves up until the time of Noah; but no doubt the Flood wiped it off the
map.

The thing to note is that the cherubim and its sword blocked not only Adam's
access to the tree but everybody else's access too; thus dooming everyone
to an eventual expiration no matter whether they're rich or poor, young or
old, male or female, righteous or unrighteous, holy or unholy, pious or
impious. 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.

/

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Technically, civil disobedience is a criminal activity in that it's the active,
professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws of the state, and/or
demands, orders, and commands of a government, or of an occupying
international power.

However, though Adam's deed qualifies as failure to comply with constituted
law and order; it doesn't really satisfy the popular understanding of civil
disobedience due to absence of the element of conscience.

Secular humanist Henry David Thoreau insisted that individuals should not
permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they
have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government
to make them the agents of injustice.

In other words: it was Thoreau's opinion that sometimes it's necessary for
the individual to defy constituted authority in order to avoid compromising
their convictions. However, his ideas deliberately omit one's loyalty to God in
matters of conscience. For example:

● Ex 1:15-17 . . The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose
names were Shiphrah and Puah, "When you help the Hebrew women in
childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but
if it is a girl, let her live." The midwives, however, feared God and did not do
what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.

From a strictly legal perspective, the midwives' conduct was criminal due to
their wanton refusal to comply with constituted authority (cf. Rom 13:1-2
and 1Pet 2:13-15). But God approved the midwives conduct; and the reason
He did so is because the women had defied Pharaoh due to their loyalty to a
constituted authority superior to his. (Ex 1:20)

Though it would've been perfectly legal to exterminate the Hebrew's baby
boys, it would have been perfectly impious to do so; the primary reason
being that according to Gen 9:5-6, Pharaoh's superior does not approve the
taking of innocent human life.

But Adam had no excuse. Neither conscience nor piety influenced his
decision to taste the forbidden fruit. Nor was his conduct inadvertent; it was
willful; i.e. done in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence.

● 1Tim 2:14 . . Adam was not deceived

/

 

[lforrest]

Galatians 5:22-23

Against such things there is NO law.

 

[bbyrd009]

In other words: it was Thoreau's opinion that sometimes it's necessary for
the individual to defy constituted authority in order to avoid compromising
their convictions. However, his ideas deliberately omit one's loyalty to God in
matters of conscience.

what? seems to me they are a call to "loyalty to God?"