The Forbidden Fruit

WeberHome

New member
-
Gen 2:8-9 . . Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-- trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

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 evil, 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,

There we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth; which Webster's defines as a statement that is only partly true and that is intended to deceive people. In other words: 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.

/
 
Last edited:

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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.

/
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
Civil disobedience is essentially a criminal activity; 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; i.e. non compliance with constituted law and order.

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.

At first glance, Thoreau's ideas makes good sense. However; it's important to take into account he refused to acknowledge the dictates of a supreme being whose commandments, laws, rules, statutes, and edicts take priority over all other forms of government.

Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience foments anarchy which, according to Rom 13:1-5 and 1Pet 2:13-15, is strictly forbidden for Christ's followers.

Here's a biblical example of civil disobedience that takes into account God's sovereignty.

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. But God approved the midwives conduct; and the reason He did so is because the women 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 Hebrews' 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. Had the midwives complied with Pharaoh's edit, they would've been murderers.

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

/
 
Last edited:

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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. 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.

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.

/
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
Gen 3:7a . .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 rice 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.

/
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
I believe this was the real sin. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5).
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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 absolutes.

/
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

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

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

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

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

A: Although tree of the knowledge of good and evil is bad for you; i.e. 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.

The tree 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. When people willfully cross over boundaries, ignoring the dangers, and start messing around, then they get hurt and it's really no one's fault but their own. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam was given fair warning that the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption. It was just as fair a warning as the label on containers of Skoal and packs of Camels. People that ignore tobacco warnings sometimes end up with cardio vascular issues and/or stricken with cancer in very disagreeable locations.

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

/
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
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.

At first glance, Thoreau's ideas makes good sense. However; it's important to take into account he refused to acknowledge the dictates of a supreme being whose commandments, laws, rules, statutes, and edicts take priority over all other forms of government.
Well said. Judeo-christianity is a totalitarian system that cannot tolerate dissent. What does your conscience tell you when the god of the Torah orders the killing of the Amalekite children and infants?

I'd suggest your conscience should be inciting civil disobedience against a supreme dictator at that point.

Stuart
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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.

/
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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 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 first, 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. His human body came from the ground; but according to Gen 2:7, his 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.

/
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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.

/
 

WeberHome

New member
Re: The Forbidden Fruit

-
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.

/
 
Top