DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Christian Theology
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3016--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: December 30, 2018, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 2:8a . .Yhvh God planted a garden in
Eden,
The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan (gan) which means a
garden as fenced; in other words; walled-- I assume to protect
it from foraging animals; which makes sense seeing as how the
garden would be Adam's primary food source. I'm guessing it was
very likely a full-blown farm complete with grains, vegetables,
and orchards; and meant for husbandry.
● Gen 2:8b . . in the east
"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis
understood. Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New
York and Chicago; while the world considers the Orient to be
east. For the purposes of modern navigation, everything towards
sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich England around the world
to Samoa is East longitude, and everything towards sunset around
the world to Samoa is West longitude.
So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to
the east; but if you were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would
be to the west. It's all a matter of perspective.
For Bible purposes, the State of Israel is oftentimes regarded
the geo-political center of the Earth. Its position is
spiritually elevated too. So whenever you go to Jerusalem, you
go up. And when you leave, you go down. It was from the east
(east of Jerusalem) that magi came to pay their respects to the
young Jesus. (Matt 2:1)
Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell.
But the garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The
garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified
geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in
Africa but that's just a shot in the dark.
The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw')
and means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very
nice location and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread
Happy Valley or Pleasant Acres.
● Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had
formed. And from the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree
that was pleasing to the sight and good for food,
The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown
but there's no reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in
his intended home. And I think we can safely assume the garden
was already viable and productive when Man arrived. God didn't
just throw him in the water to sink or swim. He gave the man a
suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a
hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a
place to settle down and call home.
Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence
who looked out for the unique little creature made in His own
image right from the first, and got him off to a good start;
which was fortunate because at that point in time, humans were
an endangered species seeing as how there was only one breeding
pair in existence.
● Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the
garden,
The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen
3:22 has something in it that sustains life. It's also a good
source for natural remedies (Rev 22:2). Exactly how the
chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to
stop the human body from getting old and falling apart is
currently unknown.
A very active field of modern scientific research in our own
time is gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging
process. As yet, gerontologists have no significant
understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to
what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.
● Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
The Hebrew word for "good" in 2:9 is from towb (tobe). It's an
ambiguous word and isn't restricted to morals, ethics, or
scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be
towb.
The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's another ambiguous
word; and includes anything that's bad for us like poison ivy,
playing with matches, E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals,
salmonella, eating without washing your hands, bungi jumping,
investing in penny stocks, walking on train tracks, pimples, a
sore throat, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.
From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the
knowledge of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right
and wrong.
Though Man was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated.
A sense of right and wrong wasn't programmed into his intuition.
He was supposed to learn right and wrong via Divine tutelage;
not by trial and error nor by self initiative-- and certainly
not by doing something patently foolish like eating from a tree
known to be unsuitable for human consumption.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3020--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: December 31, 2018, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to
water the garden,
The verb "issues" is in grammatically present tense; indicating
whoever wrote Gen 2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet
existed. The authorship of Genesis has yet to be positively
established. A verse like 2:10 strongly suggests that the data
used to compile Genesis, was progressively accumulated in
hand-me-down journals or in oral rote, generated by people who
lived prior to the final compiler's input.
The Hebrew word for "river" is nahar (naw-hawr') which is
another of those ambiguous Bible words. It can indicate a stream
or a sea and/or metaphorically: prosperity. It was stated
previously in Gen 2:6 that the face of the whole ground was
watered by fog; which suggests that the Eden river was either an
aquifer or something similar to the slow-moving water of the
Florida everglades.
● Gen 2:10b-11 . . and it then divides and becomes four
branches. The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds
through the whole land of Havilah where there is gold,
The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.
The Hebrew word for "Havilah" is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which
means circular. It's not only a place-name but also a
person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29) which may indicate that
the land of Havilah was named after an antediluvian individual
who settled in that area.
● Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is
there, and lapis lazuli.)
Again, the author used a present tense verb. The gold "is" good,
not was good-- strongly suggesting the author actually lived in
the period he wrote about.
As a money; gold has intrinsic value, whereas fiat currency as a
money is worth little more than the good faith and dependability
of the country that issues it. In other words: the US Government
could, if it wished, simply outlaw the currency you have on hand
and in an instant your paper money would be totally worthless.
But gold has never been totally worthless.
Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is
easier to mine than others and some is a whole lot more
plentiful. Placer gold for example is usually in the form of
dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and washing. Hard rock
gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock crushing, and
refinement in smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in
the form of nuggets.
However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the author's
use of the word "good" might just be saying that its gold is
bountiful; as opposed to scarce. Gold can be found just about
everywhere, but concentrations of it exist in only a relatively
few places.
Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various
trees. The author could have been referring to amber; a hard
yellowish to brownish translucent fossil resin that takes a fine
polish and is used chiefly in making ornamental objects like
beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses used to
describe the color of manna in Num 11:7.
In ancient Egypt lapis lazuli was a favorite stone for amulets
and ornaments such as scarabs; it was also used in ancient
Mesopotamia by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, and
Babylonians for seals and jewelry. Lapis jewelry has been found
at excavations of the Predynastic Egyptian site Naqada
(33003100 BC), and powdered lapis was used as eye shadow by
Cleopatra. In ancient Mesopotamia, lapis artifacts can be found
in great abundance, with many notable examples having been
excavated at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (2600-2500 BC).
● Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the
one that winds through the whole land of Cush.
Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with
both a region of Arabia and the present-day land of Ethiopia.
But the exact geographic site of the Cush of antediluvian days
is impossible to know. If it's the same, then we can be pretty
sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological events in
the distant past because it is now impossible for any river in
Ethiopia to connect in any way at all with the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers of today's world.
● Gen 2:14a . .The name of the third river is Tigris, the
one that flows east of Asshur.
According to Assyrian monuments, the Tigris was known to the
post Flood ancients as the Chiddekel, or the Hiddekel. Asshur
was located in modern-day Iraq south of Mosul on the western
bank of the Tigris river in between the Great Zab and the Little
Zab rivers.
● Gen 2:14b . . And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today headwater not too far
from Elazig Turkey; flowing roughly (very roughly) parallel to
each other from out of Turkey, past Syria and Mesopotamia, and
down into modern-day Iraq before joining together and emptying
into the Persian Gulf.
The general picture in Genesis 2 is that of a major watercourse
(the Eden River) feeding an immense aqua system supplying water
to a very large geographic area comprising parts of Turkey,
Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nubia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman,
Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iraq.
It would appear that the Eden River itself head-watered possibly
in what the world today knows as Russia; but it is impossible to
tell exactly where it came from because that region no longer
generates a south flowing monster river system such as the one
from Eden described in Genesis 2.
The third and fourth rivers no longer connect to a larger river
that elsewhere branches off and flows to Ethiopia. It's pretty
obvious from the author's geographical descriptions that the
world's current topography didn't exist prior to the Flood. The
antediluvian world was shaped quite different than the one we
live in now. The Tigris and Euphrates of today are but remnants
of an ancient irrigation system that at one time made the entire
Middle East a very beautiful and fertile region; but to look at
it today; you'd never guess it.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3030--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 1, 2019, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and
placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. And
the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the
garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of
good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.
Q: Why would God plant a hazardous tree in an otherwise perfect
environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a
tree serve that has the potential to kill people and alter human
consciousness? Why even create such a tree in the first place?
A: Although the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is unfit
for human consumption; it wasn't necessarily a bad tree. When
God finished creating, He looked over His work on the 6th day
and pronounced it all not just good, but "very" good.
Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice
light has the potential to burn your skin, give you cancer,
and/or cause permanent eye damage.
I don' t know what that tree's purpose in the garden might have
been but I'm confident it was no more intrinsically evil than
toad stools, poison ivy, lightening, rattlesnakes, scorpions,
avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus
needles, tsunamis, the solar wind, earthquakes, electricity,
fire, lava, lead, cadmium, and arsenic and hemlock are evil in
and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes, but they all
fit into the natural scheme of things.
Gen 2:15-17 is a favorite among Bible critics because Adam
didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In
point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden
for another 800 years after the birth of his son Seth (Gen 5:4).
So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent
discrepancy?
The first thing to point out is that in order for the warning to
resonate in Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as he
understood death in his own day rather than death as modern
Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In other words:
Adam's concept of death was primitive, i.e. natural rather
spiritual.
As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie
that God created with immortality. The animal kingdom was given
nothing like it. That being the case, then I think it's safe to
assume that death was common all around Adam by means of plants,
birds, bugs, and beasts so that it wasn't a strange new word in
his vocabulary; i.e. God didn't have to take a moment and define
death for Adam seeing as how it was doubtless a common
occurrence in his everyday life.
Adam saw things born, he saw things bloom, he saw things
gradually wither, he saw their life ebb away, and he saw things
decay and dissolve into nothing. So I think we can be reasonably
confident that Adam was up to speed on at least the natural
aspects of death; viz: he was familiar with mortality and he was
familiar with immortality.
Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.
"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death
is swallowed up in victory." (1Cor 15:53-54)
In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he
would've stayed forever 21, but the very day that he tasted its
fruit, his body became infected with mortality-- he lost
perpetual youth and began to age. Mortality is a walking death,
and it's slow, but very relentless. It's like Arnold
Swarzenegger's movie character; the Terminator-- it feels
neither pain nor pity, nor remorse nor fear; it cannot be
reasoned with nor can it be bargained with, and it absolutely
will not stop-- ever --until you are gone.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3046--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 2, 2019, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 2:18 . .Yhvh God said: It's not good for
Adam to be solitary; I will make a fitting helper for him.
That is a curious statement considering that God had given His
creation an evaluation of "very good" back in Gen 1:31.
Well; the evaluation was based upon "every thing that He had
made" so Adam's construction came out exactly as God wished;
which means that Adam's creator deliberately made the man
reliant upon a suitable companion right from the very get-go;
i.e. Eve wasn't a "fix" to address an unforeseen problem like
the many that plagued NASA during the Apollo program.
"fitting helper" is from two Hebrew words. "Fitting" is from
neged (neh'-ghed) which means: a front, i.e. part opposite;
specifically a counterpart, or mate. The word for "helper" is
from 'ezer (ay'-zer) which means: aid.
Note that aid isn't spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve
wasn't meant to be the man's Girl Friday, rather; someone to
strengthen him. In other words: woman's true role is a
supporting role rather than a leading role; i.e. domineering
women are out of sync with humanity's creator. The same goes for
masculine women-- a.k.a. strong women.
I suspect that Adam didn't really have it all that easy in his
world, and that Eve's companionship made his life a lot more
tolerable and worth the living. The helper that God made for
Adam would be both his counterpart, and his crutch. In other
words: wives are really at their best when they strengthen their
men to go out that door and face the big, bad, mean world.
In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear
right from the beginning that human beings were not intended to
live a celibate life. If male human life was packaged in a box
of software, one of its system requirements would be Female
Companion.
Woman's potential for companionship is the primary reason that
God made her-- not for her sex appeal nor for her reproductive
value; no, for a man's companionship; which is commonly
expressed by cordiality, friendliness, friendship, goodwill,
kindness, civility, concord, harmony, rapport, charity,
generosity, compassion, empathy, sympathy, chumminess, intimacy,
affection, devotion, loyalty, fondness, and love.
From all that, I think we can safely conclude that a woman who
tears her man down instead of building him up is a broken woman;
i.e. maladjusted.
Now; before God introduced the man to a woman, He first gave the
man an opportunity to seek appropriate companionship from among
the creatures of the animal kingdom. The results were
unsatisfactory; and no surprise there seeing as how critters
aren't equipped to relate with humans on a high enough level.
● Gen 2:19-20a . . And the Lord God formed out of the
earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and
brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and
whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its
name. And the man gave names to all the cattle and to the birds
of the sky and to all the wild beasts;
Adam's task would have been overwhelming if as many varieties
existed in his day as ours; which I honestly don't think did
because, for one thing, prior to the existence of humans the
earth underwent some mass extinction events.
I'm sure Adam loved animals; I mean look: he gave them all
names; which is something that people who make their living in
animal husbandry try to avoid because the practice can lead to
attachments; thus making the situation very difficult when it's
time for sale and/or slaughter.
My wife's kindergarten class visits a working dairy farm every
year where all the cows and the calves have number tags stapled
in their ears. On the books, those numbers are the bovines'
names; but in a matter of minutes, my wife's kinders give the
little calves real names because it's just in human nature to do
that. (I named one White Shoulder because it had an epaulette of
pale hair on its right shoulder)
But as cute and cuddly as some critters are, they just don't
have what it takes to be the kind of companion that a human
being really needs
● Gen 2:20b . . but for Adam no fitting helper was found.
That's telling me that people who prefer a pet's companionship
to a human's are out of kilter because pets, even as soothing as
they are in some situations, are unbefitting-- they're a lower
form of conscious life than people; and God didn't create them
to be people's personal companions anyway, no, according to Gen
1:26-28 He created them to be people's servants.
I think that even to this day, were most normal people given a
choice between human companionship and that of a pet; they would
opt for the human because people relate to each other much
better than they relate to critters; either wild or
domesticated.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3057--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 3, 2019, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.[font=arial]
● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon
the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed
up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib
that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for "rib" is [I]tsela'[/I] (tsay-law') and Gen
2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament
where it's translated with an English word representing a
skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated
"side" which is really how tsela' should be translated because
according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam included
some of his flesh; and seeing as how the life of the flesh is in
the blood (Lev 17:11) then I think it's safe to assume that the
flesh God took from Adam's body to construct the woman contained
some of his blood too.
The most important thing to note in that passage is that the
woman wasn't created directly from the soil as the man was, viz:
she wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. the woman wasn't her own
unique specie.
Being as the woman was created from the man's flesh, blood, and
bones, then the flesh, blood, and bones of her body were
reproductions of the man's flesh, blood, and bones. Therefore
any and all progeny produced by the woman's body, whether virgin
conceived or normally conceived, would consist of the man's
body, i.e they would be the man's progeny just as much as hers
if her own ovum was in any way at all involved in the
conception.
This section makes it appear that the woman was brought into
existence after the completion of the sixth day. But according
to Gen 1:27, the male and the female were both created at the
very same time on the very same day.
FAQ: So; where was the woman prior to her actual appearance on
the scene?
A: She was in Adam's body.
That's not a strange new idea. For example: Heb 7:9-10 says that
Levi was in Abraham's body; and that was literally centuries
before Levi was born.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3068--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 4, 2019, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the
man.
Why wasn't Eve given a chance to fit in with the animals before
introducing her to Adam? Well, I think it's because men can make
do with a soccer ball named Wilson if they have to; but normal
women, as a rule, can't. Men and Women share a lot of
similarities; but the resolve to go it solo, to be a rugged
individual, is not one of them. There are exceptions, of course;
but as a rule, women do not care to live alone and unloved in
the world. It's curious, but when we think of hermits; our minds
typically think of them as male because female hermits just seem
so contrary to nature.
Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim:
Hot diggity dog! Now I can get lucky! No he didn't say that at
all.
● Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone
of my bones and flesh of my flesh.
In other words: finally somebody Adam could really relate to;
and the expression became a colloquialism. (e.g. Gen 29:13-14)
Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend;
and that is precisely why God made women: to be their husband's
buddy. Therefore wives who aren't their husband's buddy are
seriously maladjusted; and can only be accepted as cheap goods
rather than top-of-the-line quality. Married men shackled to a
maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in a cold
war.
The one who designed a man said it is not good for a man to live
alone. And if it's not good for a man to live alone, then it
goes without saying that it's not good for a woman either. If
men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women should
be happier with a man. In other words: mankind's designer didn't
intend men and women to function independently of each other.
They were created to be together; as couples.
So Adam saw in Eve his true counterpart-- a blood relative who
was just as human as himself; and one who could truly relate to
him, be sensitive to his feelings, and understand his thoughts;
something no other creature ever yet has been able to do.
It's said that dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs
are domesticated beasts. They might bring a man his slippers,
guard his property, and lick his face; but a dog lacks the
capacity to be concerned that a man isn't eating right and
getting enough rest and/or sympathize with a man when his job is
outsourced to cheap labor in India. How many dogs shared their
master's alarm when the housing bubble burst in 2008 and Wall
Street fell off a cliff resulting in thousands of people all
over the globe to suddenly find themselves unemployed and losing
their homes? Had one do so, that would be a very unusual dog.
No; a man's true BFF is a loyal woman that looks out for him.
Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times, and he'll have good times
Doin' things that you don't understand
But if you love him, you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him, oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man.
Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand By Your Man.
Tammy Wynette and Billy Sherrill
Epic Records, 1968
_[/font]
#Post#: 3074--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 5, 2019, 7:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman,
for from Man was she taken.
The Hebrew word for "woman" is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which
is the feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being
as an individual or as a male person. So 'ishshah doesn't
indicate another species of human life (e.g. Lilith) it just
simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin.
The word "taken" is accurate enough but in my estimation,
"extracted" would be better because the woman was in Adam all
along; same goes for all the rest of us too. We weren't created
the day we were conceived; rather, we were created the day that
Adam was brought into existence. Pretty amazing when you think
about it.
● Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother
and clings to his wife,
Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy
spouses because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think
Genesis is talking about that kind of clinging. It seems to me
more like reliance and dependence; and if a man can't rely
and/or depend upon his wife; who can he rely and/or depend upon?
You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got the
wrong idea about what it means to hook up with somebody.
There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife
in that verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah.
What makes an ishshah somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun
"his" So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became
Eve's man.
You don't own me
I'm not just one of your many toys
You don't own me
Don't say I can't go with other boys.
The lyrics of that song-- originally recorded by Lesley Gore in
1963 --depict a defiant girl standing up to a possessive
boyfriend. Well; those lyrics may be true for temporary lovers;
but are very contrary to God's thinking when it comes to
marriage.
Anyway; there comes a time in every youth's life when it's time
for him to grow up, sever the apron strings, leave home, become
his own man, and take up residence with his own woman.
NOTE: Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that
his mother is another man's woman. When my son was around 29
years old and home for Christmas one year, his mother and I were
having a disagreement and he stuck up for her. I had to take my
son aside and school him that it is a serious breach of male
etiquette to come between a man and his wife. I let him get by
with it that time; but in another man's home his meddling just
might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.
● Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.
The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6 and
Rom 7:1-3, this particular unification is permanent till death,
which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't limited to marriage; it
takes effect even when people sleep around; ergo: when a man
sleeps with a woman, any woman, he becomes bonded to her for
life, and she with him. Whether they agree to it or not makes no
difference because God's decree trumps His creatures' feelings
about it.
● Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his
wife, yet they felt no shame.
They were naked at first, but there's really no reason to
believe that they would've remained that way. I mean, after all,
human skin is not all that tough. They would need to protect
themselves from dirt and grime, and from sunburn, cuts, bruises,
and abrasions.
Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling
of inferiority or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.
I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list;
defined as uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the
observation of others.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's
psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal
nudity; and actually, neither was there anything in his psyche
encouraging him to. Adam was a product of nature; hence he was
comfortable au naturel. They weren't exhibitionists by any
stretch of the imagination because in their innocence, Adam and
his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance in the 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. 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.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3085--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 6, 2019, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 3:1a . . Now the serpent was more
cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.
Probably no other creature in the Bible provokes so much
skepticism as the Serpent. It just smacks of mythology.
But this particular serpent was no ordinary reptile. It was
indeed a remarkable creature. Not only was it capable of
language, and able to communicate on a very sophisticated level
with human beings, but it had an exceptional IQ too. It grasped
the significance of a supreme being, and totally understood the
workings of human nature and the human mind. No mere animal is
capable of that degree of insight, cognition, and communication.
The final book in the New Testament confirms the Serpent's true
identity, and it is none other than the dark spirit being well
known to everyone as the Devil and Satan. (Rev 20:1-3).
According to Christ, Mr. Serpent was in the world from the very
beginning; and his stock in trade was murder and deception right
from the get go. (John 8:44)
Since Rev 20:1-3 has not yet come to pass, then the Serpent
remains at large and very active in today's modern world. It is
highly skilled at mental suggestions: secretly guiding mankind
along a road to self destruction. It is the source of much of
the world's political tensions, and certainly the impetus behind
all large scale anti-Semitic agendas.
I have never seen the Serpent myself; nor would I care to. But I
know from Matt 4:1-11 that Christ saw it, and spoke with it.
From that passage it's obvious that the Serpent is capable of
human speech, understands human needs and weaknesses, believes
in the existence of God, understands the concept of worship, a
master of sophistry, understands the Bible, and understands the
advantages of manipulating human minds, and world power.
The Serpent certainly wasn't squeamish about tempting the Son of
God to sin; so it should come as no surprise that it wouldn't
hesitate to entice a little nobody like Eve. But Eve was
extremely strategic; she was the high ground in the battle for
men's minds, because Eve was destined to be the mother of all
subsequent human beings. If the Serpent could get to the root of
humanity, it would surely gain control over the entire human
race; and it did. (Eph 2:1-3)
The Serpent seems possessed with a strange, criminal mentality:
beyond comprehension. But then, so are pedophiles, serial
killers, unabombers, ISIS extremists, terrorists, and men like
Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka, Ted
Kaczynski, and Jack the Ripper. Those kinds of criminals are
prisoners of dark minds clouded with anti-social inclinations.
The Serpent, though surely an incredible genius; is nonetheless
an evil genius; not unlike the nefarious masterminds in action
comics.
Psychopaths are a cunning breed of predators who lack empathy,
remorse, and impulse control; readily violating social rules and
exploiting others to get what they want. Curiously, psychopaths
are often so charming and manipulative that they are
well-concealed behind a mask of normalcy sometimes for years and
even their entire lives.
Five common elements of psychopathy are evident in the Serpent's
behavior.
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Deceit and dissembling; viz: repeated lying and conning others
for profit.
Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors.
If those elements sound familiar it's because they're the
all-too-typical management practices of corporations the likes
of ENRON, Nike, Nestl้, Bechtel, Union Carbide, Shell Oil, and
Monsanto.
Wall Street is especially brutal. I watched a trader interviewed
in a documentary who said that his first reaction-- upon seeing
the Twin Towers aflame in 2001 --wasn't concern for the families
and friends of the 2,300 killed and missing; but rather he
inwardly exclaimed: Oh m' Gawd! What will that do to the price
of gold?! In that man's mind, a catastrophe isn't a tragedy, no,
it's an opportunity. Futures traders are very attuned to things
like that; and in their world: nice guys really do finish last.
The garment and textile industry in particular, stands out as
the poster child of psychopathic management practices: a
veritable jewel in the Serpent's crown.
What we see in human nature often mirrors the Serpent's own dark
personality. But the origin of the Serpent's twisted mind is
really puzzling. How did it get that way? Was it a birth defect?
Did it bump its head?
I don't know; but one thing is for sure though: the Serpent's
fondness for deceit is living proof that angels are not mindless
robots created to obey the will of God without thought or
question. No; they too have a mind of their own, and the freedom
of choice between good and evil-- the very same choices that Man
is at liberty to exercise. Satan chose poorly, and his human
counterparts oftentimes do too.
The event recorded in this third chapter is a bit of an enigma.
The reason being that not only can God see the future as if
watching a video recording, but He's also fully capable of
manipulating it. In other words; the event in this chapter
wasn't unexpected; and God could have, had He wished, easily
prevented it.
People get upset with humanity's creator for not stepping in and
preventing the so-called fall of man. But they need to remember
that humanity holds the rank of a king on this earth and has the
God-given authority to conduct its own affairs as a divine
sovereign (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Ps 82:6). Besides; does
anybody really want to live in a micro-managed Big Brother
society? I don't think so. But that's the logic behind just
about every product liability lawsuit.
Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing something to
cure humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability
lawsuits go after suppliers who provide the means for humanity
to destroy itself.
God gave humanity the liberty to destroy itself; and actually,
that's the way many of us prefer it because we want to make our
own choices rather than have I-know-what's-best-for-you fanatics
limit the choices available to us.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3091--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 7, 2019, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 3:1b . . He said to the woman,
A characteristic of Eden's world was not only a lack of human
death, but also a lack of fear. Man feared neither himself, nor
the other creatures, nor the dark, nor the boogie man.
The woman displayed no recorded astonishment whatsoever when the
Serpent spoke to her; which suggests it had associated with the
Adams on other occasions before this incident; and possibly had
become a close family friend. Before making its move to wreck
their life, the Serpent more than likely spent some time in
advance nurturing a rapport with the Adams so the woman would
have no cause for alarm when it approached; and would. therefore
not suspect its intentions.
That's actually a pretty effective sales approach. Many years
ago I sold vacuum cleaners for a little while. I was trained to
engage potential customers in chit-chat, a.k.a. small talk, to
break the ice and get them to let their guards down. In other
words; to build some trust before I got down to the predatory
business of talking them into buying something expensive that
they could easily get by without.
Being an innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman
would certainly never suspect one of God's creatures to be
anything but honest and truthful. Up to this point, Eve wasn't
even aware that something called dishonesty existed. And
actually, she didn't even know what honesty was either because
nobody had taught her anything about it yet.
● Gen 3:1c . . Did God really say: You shall not eat of
any tree of the garden?
Why didn't the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning
to Eve? Well, Adam was a tougher nut to crack because he got his
intel straight from the horse's mouth. But the woman quite
possibly was instructed second hand, in conversations with her
husband; who was, in effect, her personal rabbi. So it would be
fairly easy to convince Eve that maybe she didn't hear her
husband correctly; or worse; that he didn't know what he was
talking about. I mean: isn't there more than one way to
interpret the Bible? How do you know your way is the right way?
Of course it was ridiculous to suggest the humans were forbidden
to eat of "any" tree. But the Serpent was slowly sneaking up on
the woman with subtle suggestions. Probing for weak points, the
Serpent tested her understanding of God's instructions by asking
a question that she should have been able to answer with
relative ease. In response; the woman bounced right back and
quoted God like a pro (or so she thought).
● Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may
eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only
about fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God
said: You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.
Is that really what God said? No, that's not what God said. He
forbad their eating the fruit, yes; but said nothing about
touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)
Eve failed to repeat what God said, rather, she interpreted what
He said. Apparently, in her mind's eye, the ban on eating the
fruit implied not touching it. Consequently; Eve's humanistic
reasoning put a spin on God's instructions so that instead of
following them to the letter, the woman revised them to mean
something that God didn't actually say.
Eve fell prey to a very human weakness-- not only of revising
God, but of a tendency to make the laws of God more cumbersome
and more strict than they really are.
Revisions in the form of interpretations change the meanings of
God's sayings and inevitably leads people into error. While
often containing a kernel of truth, revisions are nevertheless
not pure truth, rather, amalgams of truth and human error that
falsify God's teachings and direct people off in the wrong
direction; leading them to believe, and to repeat, things that
aren't true.
Revisions are also very useful for manipulating people to favor
the Serpent's wishes rather than their creator's. Thus, without
their knowing it, they fall in line and become the Serpent's
sheep instead of Christ's.
● Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are
not going to die,
Having already tested the woman's understanding of God's
instructions, and found it in error, the Serpent was encouraged
to push on and attempt to influence her thinking a bit more.
Hence, we have the beginnings of what's known as deceptive
ambiguity. In other words; the Serpent's statement can be
understood in more ways than one. Without an explanation, Eve
was left to her own imagination as to what he meant. But it
likely never occurred to her to ask for clarification.
The Serpent was somehow aware that Eve wouldn't drop dead to the
floor from eating the forbidden fruit. So that much of his
statement was true. However, what he didn't tell Eve was that
the fruit would cause her to lose immortality, i.e. she would
become mortal, which is a walking death rather than a sudden
death.
NOTE: Something that Christ's believing followers have to be
constantly on guard against is sophistry; which Webster's
defines as subtly deceptive reasoning and/or argumentation (Eph
4:11-14). Cults typically sustain themselves by means of
sophistry; which of course they call reasonable and/or sensible.
But faith isn't built upon only what makes sense to it; rather,
faith is built upon what's revealed to it. (1Cor 2:4-5)
So be careful out there; most especially with door-to-door
missionaries armed to the teeth with humanistic reasoning,
semantic double-speak, and clever half truths.
_[/font]
#Post#: 3104--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Journey Thru Genesis
By: Olde Tymer Date: January 8, 2019, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.
[font=arial]● Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you
eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil.
If someone presented you with an opportunity to bring your mind
up to the level of God's intelligence, and you didn't know any
better, wouldn't you take it? I think so.
The thing to note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't
altogether untrue. In time their eyes were opened and they
became conscious of good and evil (Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22) but as
upcoming events will reveal, his prediction was a half-truth;
viz: their consciousness of good and evil was humanistic rather
than divine.
Anyway: the Serpent insinuated that their creator was
withholding the tree, not because it was poisonous or anything
like that; but to keep the humans in check: much in the way that
some of the world's despots utilize illiteracy, control of radio
and television programming, restricted contact with foreigners,
and limited internet access to keep their citizens subdued.
In effect, the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from
that very same tree and that's why He didn't want to share the
fruit with them; because then they might become savvy enough to
go out on their own without depending so much upon their maker.
In her defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no
match for the Serpent's cunning nor his powers of persuasion.
But her defeat wasn't inevitable. She could have easily resisted
the Serpent by simply sticking to her guns and parroting God's
instructions over and over again until the Serpent got disgusted
and gave up. She also could've talked the matter over with her
husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's
instructions early on and left her husband out of it; thus
laying the groundwork for the utter ruin of her own posterity.
_[/font]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page