From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: What make you of this?
>Gen.2:16 to the man "alone"> And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
>Gen.2:17> But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
>Gen.1:29 to "them"> And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
>Gen.3:1b> And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
>Gen.3:4> And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Note the plural "ye", not the singular "thou" in Gen.3:1-5.
>CQ> Hence, if one does not "assume" things, the plain meaning of the text is that "God" (...) clearly "lied" to Adam, and the Serpent, far from "tempting" Eve simply told her the "truth".
Calling God a liar doesn't put you on his good side. The serpent did not speak "the" truth, but "a" half truth. After all, Adam "alone" was told, "thou [singular] shalt not eat of it" in Gen.2:17 and in Gen.3:17 the exact same six words to Adam only appear. And again in Gen.3:11, the singular "thou" and "thee" appear to Adam. Adam surely "died" (5:5p) as it is written, "In the day..." (5:1p).
One "day" is with the Lord as a thousand years. Adam was seventy years short of a thousand when "he died." Instead of saying that the woman died, rather we read: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve [LIFE!]; because she was the mother of all living." (Gen.3:20)
Only "the man" was driven out of the garden, since the Lord was concerned "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever". Also? In addition to WHO else?
Adam "alone" had the commandment of Gen.2:16-18. They both had the blessing to "them" of Gen.1:28-30. The expression "every tree" appears in BOTH places. The serpent was not speaking to the man "alone", but to the woman who was not a party to the commandment in Gen.2:16,17. The serpent's statement that, Ye [plural] shall not surely die, was a "truth", to the extent that the 2:17 commandment did not say that both of them would surely die.
(Be not deceived. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. :)
(-1 Please see next message. Thanks. :)
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: What make you of this?
>The Lord to Adam> Where art thou?
>Adam> I heard thy voice in the garden, and
>Adam> I was afraid, because
>Adam> I was naked; and
>Adam> I hid myself.
Did Adam say "where" he was? (How wide are newly planted trees? :)
>The Lord> Who told thee that thou wast naked? ...
>Adam> The woman whom thou gavest to be with me...
Did you catch that? Moses didn't write every thing the woman said! After the woman ate first, she "told" Adam that he was "naked"! Adam hearkened unto her VOICE! He was not deceived by either the serpent or the woman. He freely chose to hearken unto her voice instead of hearkening unto the Lord's commandment to him "alone".
>The Lord> ... Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded
>The Lord> thee that thou shouldest NOT eat?
>Adam> ...she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
>CQ> Are we to infer the simple direct interpretation that God didn't know? Most of us can't allow that because of what we believe. But if we follow such a train of thought?
Following a serpent-like "train", slithering across your brain, does not sound like much of a gain. Faced with the choice of eating grass like sheep or eating dirt like a Parrot; Do you mimic the serpent?
A father walks into a room just as his son hits his daughter. The son cowers. The father says, (in a presumption of innocence tone of voice:) "Did you just hit your sister?" Surely he was not asking out of ignorance. What is the standard answer that such a son gives?
("SHE hit me first!" :) - Adam: "THE WOMAN...SHE..." (Me first? :)
Look at Gen.3:16, Does it say "BECAUSE thou hast..."? No. (There is no condemnation of the woman by the Lord.) Does the word "cursed" appear there? Of course not, she was "blessed" back in Gen.1:28. To both the serpent and Adam, the Lord begins with "Because thou hast...", but the woman was BEGUILED! The word CURSED is in the things said to both the serpent and Adam. The serpent was directly cursed. But Adam, (bless his heart:) was "blessed" back in Gen.1:28, so the "ground" was cursed in his stead. [, for his sake.]
The woman was the only one of the FOUR persons accused, that had a valid ALIBI! She was an unwitting accomplice, being deceived. The Lord GRACIOUSLY (grin) accepted the "blame" for GIVING away the bride to her husband! ("The woman whom thou gavest..." :)
(-2 Please see next message. Thanks. :)
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: What make you of this?
>>CQ2> She died didnt she?
In Adam all die. Eve was taken out of Adam BEFORE sin entered into the world, and death by sin. The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, is not the God of the dead, but of the LIVING! (Eve [LIFE!] is not the mother of the dead, but of all LIVING! :)
>CQ> Lets see, plain text - touch that keyboard and surely you will die. You take this to mean "eventually"?
>KJV Singular:> Thou, Thee, Thine, Thy
>KJV Plural:> Ye, You, Yours, Your
The Lord's version, to Adam "alone" says, thou shalt not eat of it. (Gen.2:17p and exact same 6 words in 3:17p!) Singular!
The woman's version: "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." (Gen.3:3p) Plural! (She was DECEIVED! :)
The serpent: "Yea, hath God said, Ye..." (No, the Lord said thou! :)
The new so-called "bibles" that substitute "you" for both the plural and the singular, are as deceptive as the serpent. There was no woman in Gen.2:16,17. She was not given that commandment:
The Lord, to Adam: "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" (Gen.3:11p)
The Lord, to Adam: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"
The woman was not "taken" out of the ground. She was the ONLY creature that was not brought forth from either the "waters" (5th day creatures) or the earth/ground (6th day creatures). She did not come FROM the dust, so she could not "return" to the dust! (She was not made from dead dust, but from a HEART high LIVE rib! "The woman", from the rib, "is the GLORY of the man"! 1Cor.11:7p :)
"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." (Gen.3:23)
"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach."
The Lord did not drive the woman out! Her "desire" (Gen.3:16p) was to her husband! She followed her desire! (What dost THOU desire? :)
Grace be to them that CHERISH the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. --Richard
From a further message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: "alone" (Gen.2:18p :)
>>>CQ> Hence, if one does not "assume" things, the plain meaning of
>>>CQ> the text is that "God" (...) clearly "lied" to Adam,
>>RC> Calling God a liar doesn't put you on his good side.
>CQ> Oh my, having read the Psalms I am fairly sure God can stand any outburst of mine@
"Thou hast said."
>>RC> One "day" is with the Lord as a thousand years. Adam was seventy years short of a thousand when "he died."
>CQ> You sure have to twist and squirm to get scripture to fit your view. Seems simpler just to take it straight!
Then why don't you accept the "straight" scripture view of the apostle Peter? "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2Pet.3:8)
BEFORE the word "day" appeared in Gen.2:17, you were given THREE meanings for the word "day" in Genesis:
(1) DAYLIGHT ("And God called the light Day" --Gen.1:5p)
(2) Full DAY ("the evening and the morning" --Gen.1:5p) (24-hr day)
(3) an AGE ("in the day that the LORD God made" --Gen.2:4p)
The context of the word "day" in Gen.2:17p is therefore within the "day" of Gen.2:4p covering the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth". And the "day" of Gen.5:1-5 where Adam "died" is obviously 70 years short of a thousand year "day."
>>RC> Only "the man" was driven out of the garden, since the Lord was concerned "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".
>CQ> Eve stayed behind? This is news.
Don't be silly. The following appeared also in my replies to you:
>From a message of 25Feb98 03:20 by Richard Clark to CQ--
>>RC> Subject: Desire to see Jesus! :)
"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." (Gen.3:23)
"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach."
The Lord did not drive the woman out! Her "desire" (Gen.3:16p) was to her husband! She followed her desire! (What dost THOU desire? :)
Grace be to them that CHERISH the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. --Richard
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Universal Faith ?
>CQ> Refer to Genesis 1:28. There are several commandments there, disobedience to which would constitute sin.
The word in Gen.1:28 is not "commanded", but "blessed". He blessed them with fruitfulness; He blessed them to "have dominion". There was no prohibition whatsoever in Gen.1:28-30. A command is an act of Law, but a blessing is an act of GRACE! Dominion GIVEN by grace!
>CQ> Genesis 1:28 indicates that celibacy is not God's plan for Man. Therefore the celibate eunuch "priests" of the roman-catholic religious cult are deliberate sinners since they disobey God's command to be fruitful and multiply.
Obviously the BLESSING to Adam and Eve alone was not intended to apply to all mankind, since obviously the Lord makes some women BARREN, and does not "bless" them with fruitfulness. "AND God blessed Noah... Be fruitful, and multiply..." (Gen.9:1p) Did Noah beget more children after the flood? and if not, was he a deliberate sinner? Mt.19:12p-- "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb..." God doesn't bless all to be fruitful.
>CQ> God's commandment in Genesis 2:16-17 was not His only commandment to Adam.
Up to that point in TIME, it was the only thing "commanded" to the man "alone"! It was after the man alone was commanded that thing, that the Lord said, It is not good that the man should be alone! Only the man was commanded not to eat of that certain tree. It was AFTER the woman was created that the Gen.1:28-30 blessing was given.
The man alone was under the LAW of Gen.2:16,17, but the woman was under GRACE! The man was not deceived; the woman was beguiled. The woman ate first, but sin did not enter the world when she ate. It is by one man that sin entered into the world. Christ, the last Adam, was under the law. The bride of Christ, the church, is not under the law, but under GRACE! (Saved by grace! :)
CAUSE AND EFFECT. The Lord began his judgment against both the serpent and the man with, "Because thou hast..." But there is no "because" to the woman! (She has a "because" in v.20! :) She was not accused by the Lord for having "done" anything. Adam accused her. (He accused both his wife and the Lord of GIVING! :) Before Adam was condemned for eating, he was condemned for hearkening unto the voice of his wife, instead of hearkening unto the Lord's command.
The serpent was directly cursed. The Lord could not curse the man, since he had already "blessed" him in Gen.1:28+, so the ground was cursed in the stead of Adam, for his sake.
>CQ> The Fall of Man was not a necessity but a possibility, and because of Man's diosobedience, the Fall became a certainty.
The fall was a CERTAINTY in Gen.2:17, since the Lord did not say, IF thou eatest, but said, "for in the day that thou eatest..." Plainly, the Lord not only knew Adam WOULD eat, but when he would!
Grace be to your heart in love, for Jesus' sake. Amen. --Richard
>Curious Questioner> Concerning 1 Tim 2:11, why do you suppose that Paul used "woman", rather than "women"?
> 1Tim.2:13--"...Eve."
> 1Tim.2:14--"...the woman being deceived..."
Adam's Personal name for her was "Eve", but she was called "woman" because she was taken out of man. Adam was NOT deceived. (She was called Eve, after Adam disobeyed.)
The Lord said UNTO ADAM: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;" (Gen.3:17 - same 6 words as Gen.2:17-- "thou shalt not eat of it".)
The man ate because he hearkened to the teaching of the woman.
>CQ> If verse 13 shows Eve to be "the woman" in verse 11, what do you do with verse 10 --- who is that referring to?
That's your assertion, NOT mine. The change in verse 11 to a more individual or personal application of authority as it relates to the man and the woman is apparent. The context of verse 11 to the end of that chapter is more of a direct application of authority as it relates to teaching with NO authority granted there to the woman. (In Titus 2, older women are told what to teach younger women. :)
Consider Numbers 12, where Miriam and Aaron rebel against Moses' authority, and only Miriam was stricken with leprosy, which would indicate that she was doing the TALKING for both her and Aaron. (In Numbers 12:11 Aaron speaks for him and her, but for her sake.)
Similarly, in Genesis 3, Eve speaks for her and Adam, "We..." (3:2p).
>CQ> By the way, in verse 12, "man" is from the Greek "aner",
The greek there is: "Andros" - THE man. AnthrOpos (before that verse) speaks of man as he appears, i.e., human "kind" (1Cor.15:39). Andros speaks more of the person or the male "sort" of man kind. Husband in 1Tim.3:2 is "andra", but again in 3:4,5, we see that Paul is still putting clear emphasis on AUTHORITY. The man is to exercise the delegated authority given him over the woman, but MUST himself also be subject to his head. (He's supposed to be in submission to the Lord, as an example for his wife in like manner to be submissive. :)
Remember that Jesus is the Lord and go thou and do likewise. Grace, mercy and truth be unto you for Jesus' sake. Amen. --Richard
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: ITEM OF INTEREST
>CQ> I went on to teach that, although mankind in general (adama), was created on the sixth day, or sixth thousand year period, "The Man" Adam, was not created until the eighth day, or eight thousand year period. This being born out by the use of "est," a particle meaning, "emphatic", and "ha," a participle meaning "the," which preceded the Hebrew word "adama," or Adam proper.
Est? Adam in hebrew is ETH-HA-ADAM. Eth meaning ENTITY. As such, ETH is left untranslated by english speakers, who assume all things are entities. (If it WERE translated, the Bible would say, "God created the-heaven-entity and the-earth-entity" etcetera-entity. :)
>CQ> Anyway, you may also remember that on the sixth day, Eloheim (YaHVaH and His sons), created simultaneously, both male and female (Gen. 1:27). However, in the case of "the" Adam (proper), there was not found an help meet for him.
Simultaneously? No. The man in Gen.1:27 was plainly created before the female:
"So God created man [Eth-Ha-Adam!] in his own image, in the image of God created he [singular] him; [semicolon!] male and female created he them." (Gen.1:27 with [notes] added)
Chapter 2 also has the man made before the woman. And lookey here:
"THIS is the book of the generations of Adam.[!] In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; [singular] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Gen.5:1,2)
Mr. and Mrs. Adam were the male and female of Gen.1:27! ONE FLESH! After Mrs. Adam became a mother, Adam called her Eve (Viva! LIFE! :)
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (1Cor.11:7) The woman was not a look-alike clone of Adam, but only the glory of the man, not made in his image or God's image.
THE man created on the 6th day is plainly Adam himself. The POINT in time where he is CALLED "Adam" by NAME, is when the Lord brought other creatures before him to see what he would CALL them: "and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
On the 5th & 6th days in chapter 1, you find some creatures created before Adam. In chapter two, you find SPECIAL creatures created after Adam, with the woman being made last. Those created before Adam were fowls from the waters and the beast of the earth; but those created after Adam were fowls from the ground and the beast of the FIELD. Domestic creatures to be help meets! Water fowl on the 5th day, but after Adam on the 6th day: domestic fowl.
(Q: "Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?" A: The Chicken! :)
(And the Quack-quack came before the Cockle-doodle-doo! :)
>CQ> In Genesis 2:21-22, YaHVaH caused a sleep to come upon Adam, during which YaHVaH removed one of his ribs. The interesting thing is this. The word translated as rib, is actually "curve" (see your concordance). Because a rib has a curve, and that is the only thing that made sense to the translators, rib was the item chosen. However, it should be understood that this curve was actually the curved DNA structure found in Adam. Adam therefore, was able to say: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
ETH-HA-TSELA is the-rib-entity. (Do you think that the people that were smitten "under the fifth rib" in the old testament were only smitten in their DNA? Did Joab actually use a COSMIC-RAY spear? :)
If she was not made from a fleshy-rib, but only from DNA which is neither flesh nor bone, then Adam would not be "able to say: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh...'", as you said.
Obviously more than just DNA was removed. After THE-RIB-ENTITY was removed, the Lord "closed up the flesh instead thereof." Instead of a hard, protective rib over the apex of his heart, he had a "soft spot over his heart", a tender reminder! The Lord Jesus Christ had his side pierced by a spear, under the fifth rib at the apex of his heart. He invited Thomas to thrust his hand into his own soft spot!
>CQ> YaHVaH made a few adjustments to the DNA structure of Adam, and basically "cloned" Adam's wife.
Clones are made from living cells, not DNA only. And clones look exactly like their original. (Cut the arms off a starfish, and each will re-grow the missing parts, making 5 clones that look just like the original.) Adam had a reddish-brown complexion, being made from soil. Eve was the ONLY creature that was not brought forth from either the waters or the earth. She was made from a LILY-WHITE rib, not reddish-brown dirt. Eve had fair skin, (and a rosy blush when she ate the grapes and realized Adam was naked. :)
Identical twins are clones of a single fertilized egg. That seems to be the case with Cain and Abel. After Eve "conceived", two came out! (The Lord told her he would greatly multiply her conception. :)
LITTLE CHILDREN! On the subject of cloning and regeneration: "If a salamander limb is amputated and a flap of whole skin is grafted over the amputation surface, regeneration will not occur..." (The distal accumulation of blastema cells is blocked.) "HUMAN CHILDREN below the age of about 11 have regenerated lost fingertips if the wounds are not prematurely COVERED." (Squeeze the upper arm to SLOW bleeding, but don't pinch the nerve sending repair instructions to the hand! Get child [and body parts in ice] to hospital. PRAY! :)
>CQ> This was necessary because Adam and his direct descendants (from firstborn to firstborn through Shem, and ending with YaHshua the MessYaH), were to hold the office of Melchizedek...
Shem was not directly descended from Adam's firstborn, Cain, but from Seth who was born nearly 130 years after Adam began to have "sons AND DAUGHTERS" (see Gen.5 & 6) (Of course, Shem was INDIRECTLY descended from Cain, since Shem's mother was from Cain's line! :)
And as to whether Shem was the firstborn of Noah: Was he not between "Japheth the elder" and Ham the "younger"? The order of their names (Shem, Ham and Japheth,) is the same as the order of predominance of the racial colors in the Rev.13 leopard: Yellow, Black and White.
What about the red-skins? Well, the 7 heads and 10 horns of the red dragon also appear on the Rev.13 beast. Noah was a red-skin, like Adam! The descendents of Ham went south to Africa, Shem east and Japheth north. That left the WESTERN American/Atlantis continent which was split-off in the days of Peleg! Noah was still alive for ten years after Peleg died! (America was somewhat of a secret before 1492, and whether or not Noah had any more children after the flood is still a secret... or is it? :)
"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gen.9:1) Did you catch that? The "them" includes Noah, who was told to be fruitful and multiply! "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" --Rom.11:33 (Art thou having fun yet? :)
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with us all. Amen. --Richard
| NEXT |
URL of this page: http://www.avbtab.org/rc/read/alone.htm