Chapter 3
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
- An animal that can speak? Did God create the serpent “in his image” as well?
- Some would insist that the serpent is really “Satan” in disguise. However, since there is no mention of anything of the sort in these chapters, I cannot comment on such a speculation. Moreover, the implications of such a speculation deserve a page of their own, and will be addressed later.
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
- When did God ever tell the woman not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
- An animal that can speak and is more intelligent than the humans? When did God create such a creature, and why?
Notice that the serpent tempts the woman and not the man.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
- If God was true to his word, they should be dead, right?
3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
- Whoa, let’s back up for a minute. God first explained to the humans that eating from the Tree of Knowledge leads to certain death. We now see that it was a lie. The serpent, who somehow knew about the Tree of Knowledge, set things straight by telling Eve the absolute truth. And judging by the serpent’s tone of voice, there was no hint of deception or wickedness on the serpent’s part. After all, the serpent turned out to be right! So even if we don’t want to call God’s earlier statement a lie, we can certainly call it a threat – how very ungodlike!
3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
- The LORD was “walking in the garden”; does this mean that the LORD is, after all, a material being with arms, legs, and such?
- “heard the voice of the LORD” – was he mumbling to himself?
- How can anyone hide oneself from the presense of the LORD? Does this not question His omnipresence?
3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
- What kind of question is that for a God?
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
- Don’t you know? Aren’t you God?
3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
- The serpent did not beguile anyone. The serpent did nothing but speak the truth. And shame on Eve for blaming everything on the serpent.
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
- God punishes the serpent eternally for speaking the truth and tampering with his precious robot-like subjects (Adam and Eve). What a just and noble God.
- Shouldn’t God be blaming himself for creating a serpent that’s more intelligent than the humans? After all, the serpent even knew about good and evil! And in any case, couldn’t God predict that this might happen, and do something to prevent it?
- What did the serpent look like before it was “changed” into its current shape? Some say that it looked much like a Komodo Dragon. But then, why do Komodo Dragons still exist?
- Notice that modern snakes do not eat “dust.” In fact, they eat many kinds of animals, and are often very successful predators. Does this sound like a “cursed” species?
- “Cursed above all cattle” — does this mean that all other animals are also cursed just a little bit?
- Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge before they knew about good and evil, right? So how could they have known that it’s a sin to disobey God’s command? If they couldn’t tell right from wrong, they would have no problem disobeying God’s orders, and God should know that. Doesn’t this make God’s punishment a little ex post facto? How did God ever expect them to follow his orders if they didn’t know right from wrong?
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
- Again, the Bible’s heartfelt attitude towards women emerges.
- The reason women experience pain during childbirth is because, due to our evolution into bipedalism, the human pelvis gradually became narrower, making it much more difficult for a woman to push the baby through the birth canal. Another example of this kind of evolutionary friction is the human jaw, which gradually became smaller, making it nearly impossible for wisdom teeth to grow in fully.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, 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; 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
- How mature. If the LORD really didn’t want the humans to know about good and evil, wouldn’t a much simpler course of action be to quietly erase their short-term memories and keep going as if nothing happened? Is that too difficult a task for the Almighty? And for God’s sake, do a better job of hiding or at least protecting the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil!
- But no; instead, the LORD lets the humans live and multiply, until he finally can’t take it anymore, and destroys the world’s entire population! (sorry, I read ahead a little bit)
- Here’s an even better idea: don’t create the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil!
- By the way, I’m still waiting for the LORD to say “be fruitful and multiply.” He says this in Chapter 1 (the first creation story), but doesn’t say it in this creation story. In fact, I get the feeling the LORD is strongly opposed to them multiplying right now. So which creation story are we supposed to believe?
3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
- The mother of what? She hasn’t given birth to anything yet. She will be the mother of “all living,” but only for a little while, until the LORD kills everything. It will be more accurate to say that Mrs. Noah will be the mother of all living.
3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
- Rather than making coats out of a non-living material (like dust), the LORD kills a few of his animals?
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
- So all that the humans had to do was eat from the Tree of Life, and they would become Gods?! Why would the LORD ever create such a dangerous security risk to himself?! It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that such an irresponsible God would have annihilated himself by now.
- Notice that the LORD never told the humans not to eat from the Tree of Life. Why is that?
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
- Why didn’t the LORD think of that before?
- What on earth are “Cherubims” and on what day were they created?
- According to this chapter, the Garden of Eden was located on Earth, specifically in the Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia). It was not located in “heaven,” or any other non-earthly place. Why is there no evidence in the modern “Mesopotamia” that this Garden ever existed? And why do I always hear people considering the Garden of Eden being synonymous with “heaven,” if the Garden was on Earth?
Besides the fact that we know that women experience pain for physiological reasons and not because of God’s curse, why the hell would a just God punish the decendents of Eve?? That is in no way just or even reasonable not to mention effective. Women don’t adjust their moral behaviour because they will have pain if they give birth. In fact, it does not even seem to curb births at all. The sex drive is so strong that women even risk the pain of birth. Good job God. And just to add my own somewhat related opinion…why does God allow so many births to so many who cannot afford (financially, emotionally etc.) to have them when the person who is most punished is the child. There are many parents who abandon their children, kill them or worse keep them to be tortured as an object of their own failings. Again, I say good job God you sure did those those sinners by burdening them with a baby.
I have often asked christians how adam and eve could have “sinned” before knowing good from evil, the comments are usually something like “they still knew it was wrong”. This would be just another fairly harmless contradiction in the OT, if it weren’t for the pernicious use it is put to in the NT, where Paul uses this incident to proclaim what was to become the doctrine of original sin. Without the taint of adam on all future souls, there would be no universal need for christ. (God makes souls, so they must be pure to begin with, so how does the original sin get passed on? Augustine opined it was in the sperm)
Dear Sir/Madame
I hope that this message finds you well, and at ‘peace within your house’
I have an interest in scripture and the outworking plan of THE GOD!
I came upon an intereptation of Gen. 3-6 in my studies that seemed to say, not “…who was with her!” but rather “…when with her!”.
To some it may seem that this is an unimportant detail and indeed could perhaps be described as ‘artistic license’, but to some it IS of vital interest!. In one arguement (and it must be noted that many versions of the Bible agree with “…who was with her”), it would appear that the man was there at the exact time of the womans ‘visit’ to the tree and its apparant occupant, the “serpant”. To some, if the reading of”…when with her” be more closely related with accuracy of actual events, it would seem to indicate that the woman was alone with the object of her desire and if and in fact this be true, than perhaps the “…when with her” would be in a later situation of intimacy, where her actions were less likely to be considered in its true light, for it is well known that when in a sexual heat the male of the species (in this case human species) does not think clearely!
I would like to thank you, dear one, for taking the time to read this letter and for my own selfish reasons ( I suppose) I would value imput into this arguement.
To that end, may I dare to ask if you, in your files of d-base, could transmit which version of OUR Tribal Cannon (bible) may use the expression “…when with her”!
Once again I thank you for your kindness in adressing my humble thirst for Truth!
jeffrey harris
P.S. Perhaps it would not be to foward of me to ask if there is online a research that compares and gives visual aid to different ‘translations’ side by side, including trans-literations of scripture from Hebrew to English, as well as Greek-Aramiac to same.
May the God of Life and Eternity bless the spirit that is within YOU.
woman was alone with the “serpant”
Yeah, if God were true to his word, Eve should have died… he must’ve realized that they wouldn’t be able to reproduce. Hehe.
Also, if God were true to his word, David should have died when he commits adultery in 2 Kings (The law prohibits adultery by way of death). Instead, God and David end up becoming bestest friends. So, its not the only time.
in 2;24 adam is commanded to cleave to his wife or some such and then when he follows her to original sin he is condemened. no fair
When Bible literalists try to invoke genetics in their tortured explanations, they only make messes of things.
They get lots of questions about “Cain’s wife”, and understandably so. At the answersingenesis.com site, they offer a long-winded explanation about how Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, and therefore capable of parenting many children who themselves could interbreed without concern over genetic defects and the like. Putting aside for the moment what it even means to be “without any genetic defects”, one thing I’d love to see answered has to do with heritable traits.
Supposedly Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam. Wouldn’t that suggest then that all his male offspring, and their male offspring, should have one more rib than Adam? After all, the number of ribs a person has is genetically determined, and not based on the reproducers current physical attributes. And shouldn’t Eve (and therefore all women) have one more rib than Adam, unless of course men are genetically determined to have one more rib than women? How come men and women presently have the same number of ribs, if indeed they were taken from the same perfect genetic stock?
I suppose an apologist could simply say that God waved his finger and “made it so”, making men’s and women’s ribcages numerically identical at some later point. That is conveniently omitted from the inerrant Bible though. It seems to me that this whole idea of woman being brought forth from the ribcage of man came about from a misperception that men and women actually did have unequal numbers of ribs – and when it was found that those numbers were in fact equal, apologists had to overlook it, because this therefore means either that the whole “born from a rib” idea is throwaway bunkum not pertinent to anything, or that the writers of Genesis just didn’t understand how genetics works. I don’t blame prehistoric people for not knowing how traits are inherited, of course, but modern-day apologists don’t have that excuse.
“You shall surely die” is absolutely correct. One can infer from this account that humans were originally intended to live forever; however, we know that everyone dies…the text doesn’t say “You will INSTANTLY die”.
(I was referring to verse 6.)
OK, so A&E had eternal life from the get-go and would keep it UNLESS/UNTIL they ate from *the* tree. Why would they need the tree of immortality? What would happen if they ate from both trees one after the other? Knowledge of good & evil plus immortality! This would have negated ANY threat of death, (termination, not continued existence with a much worse quality of life). We ‘know’ that they gained knowledge — and death, albeit not “on that day”. Gen. 3:22-24 tells us the Cheribum was stationed near the tree of immortality to prevent knowledge + immortality. Yet this is the very thing X’ians have held & preached for centuries: eternity, (in heaven or hell), with full knowledge of good & evil!
P.S I suggest the next time you are evangelized by a “Have you been saved?” transmitter, ask them to show you where man RE-gained immortality post-fall. Then ask for a few citations mentioning ‘immortal soul’. AFAIK, there are *NONE* & only 4 verses out of some 31,700+ say “immortality”. (The 4th one says God alone HAS immortality.)
Gen 3:2 & Gen 3:3
If we can assume that God did not give Eve this information then we can assume she obtained it from somewhere. Hmmm…let’s see? Who else could have been there that might have had been given this directive and could have quite possibly passed that information on to Eve?.
Any guesses anyone?
Gen 3:1 No, God did not create the Serpent in his image, and no the Serpent could not speak. Satan only inhabited the Serpent for his purposes. This would explain the Serpent acquiring the power of speech. The serpent is not referred to as Satan because it is not Satan but merely a vessel of opportunity used for his deception. However there is further reference to the Serpent and Satan in later scriptures, for example Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
And also Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.
Gen 3:4-3:5 The Bible does not say that the Serpent was more intelligent than man. Gen 3:1 It says he was more subtle that the other animals of the field. The Bible makes clear distinction between Man and the Animals of the field. Also the word subtle in Hebrew is Arum which means crafty. His intelligence is never compared to that of Mans in the Bible.
3:6 If God was true to his word, they should be dead, right?
Aren’t they?
The Hebrew word for “day” here which is Yom, does not always mean a 24-hour day. In this case, or verse, the Word Yom would mean an age or length of time measured in a period of history since it is not preceded by an ordinal number such as in Genesis 1:5 in where it means a 24 hour day. Yom in this verse is not qualified with a number or the phrases ‘evening and/or morning,’ and represents a period of time.
3:7 God did not lie, they did die.
Refer to my previous post on Gen 3:6
Gen 3:8
Since you are arguing your point from a Biblical perspective I can answer it from that same view point.
If God can create the Universe and all that which is within it, is not possible than that as God he could manifest himself into human form? Would this be outside of the supernatural abilities of a Supreme being? I personally do not think so. God intended to dwell with us and walking within his own creation would be quite understandable.
God also manifested Himself in certain places through certain things, such as a burning bush ( Ex. 3 ), the pillar of fire ( Ex. 13:21 ), smoke in the temple ( Isa. 6 ), and so forth. It is within this latter localized sense that one could go or hide “from the presence of the Lord.”
In Genesis we see a trend which suggests that a man named Moses
could interpet the meaning of creation.This in the bible is a mis-
interpetation.
Man and woman were created by God along with the beast of the feild
but man was given the mind to be influenced.Just like we can train certain animals,sprits train us to behave in certain ways.God did
not produce the tree of Good and Evil,nor did he produce the tree
of knowledge and inmortality.
God designed the world,to be a testing ground for his worshipers.
Notice how Jesus was tempted,Satan revealed the kingdom of this
world,and said”bow down and worship me and I will give you the
kingdoms of this world”.
How could he give something he did not create unless God gave him
ownership.Adam and Eve are a figment of the authors imagination.
God had already set in motion that man would be evil,to please his
own folly.When he became sick of his mistake he destroyed his own
works.
We make the mistakes of believing that Adam and Eve were perfect.
No they were not perfect.They were a small part of the basic mode
of creation that God planed.Most people do not realize that Satan
is not the only angel God put on this world.God has many more that
have laid claim to mankind.these beings are the ones that cause
strife between the races of men,
They take the form of Gods in many other names.And God delights in
confrontations whit them.
We are mere puppets in the grand game and have little knowledge of
the true meaning of life.Adam and Eve did not create sin,by eating
a furit,Moses dreamed up that lie to comdend mankind.Good and evil
were created by God and he is in charge.
Nothing is of limits to him.He controls this world and what we do.
We are a product of his creation and we suffer only as Job suffered
to prove a point.
God did not have a garden of eden,just like he did not have a promised land for the Jews.If he had one why would they have to walk.he parted the Red Sea,so what was the motive of people in the
desert walking.And why kill off them for 40 years until a new generation came.
No I do not believe the bible is correct,just another man’s view
of the words spoken and then changed to convense certain people to
believe in a religion not a God.
God to me is not in words,his power is far beyond what I or you
could write about him.If you really want to worship him then follow
the Ten Commands which were not nailed to the cross,but were written on the spirit of those who believe before they were even
born.
Notice Revelations 14:12 in keeping the commandments of God.Only
those whom the Lord has chosen can do this.Man can not of his own accord have salvation.
If God was omnipotent, how could he lovingly look into the future, see that Satan was an abomination to create, then cheerfully proceed to create not only satan, but sinners, & a hell to throw them into for what he already knew they were going to do?
Also, if Mathew 5:14 is impossible to obey because of how God creates us, why does he demand we be perfect if it isn’t possible to be so? Isn’t that just begging for someone to disobey, well, ok, sin?
God causes us to sin by creating us into sin, shaping us into iniquity, & God is the one who shapes us in the womb. Remember, God is in control of if you live or die, & remember that King David was NOT punished for his crime of adultery with another man’s wife, but rather, God slew the innocent baby that had done no wrong, while allowing David to got scot free just because he prayed & repented of it.
The Bible never mentions where David was further punished, but that baby never got to live his life. What would we do if our criminal courts killed not the one doing the wrong, but the relative or family of the one that did the wrong, while wrong doers got away?
Is this justice?
God Almighty created the human race through incest. If there were two original parents, then 1) Adam had sex with his female children, 2) Eve had sex with her male children, or 3) the children of Adam and Eve had sex with each other. No wonder there are so many idiots who believe in a “holy book” that celebrates God and His ways.
You asked the question :
When did God ever tell the woman not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Here is the answer :
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.
This is hilarious!! I mean, religious people are getting contradictions ever since the science started explaining all things to us…
How can you not see that the books of Genesis are closer to a fairy tale than ANYTHING resembling a factual account for the creation of the universe ! Oh, but you must have faith to truly understand.. Faith in what? If I had just started reading the OT and this is some of the first gibberish I came across, it is a disaster. The fallacies and contradictions in the fairy tale are glaring to even a third grader. Only mental masterbation and the trump card of the all encompassing GOD argument can provide the faithful with a modicum of rationaization about their righteousness in the story. Face it, the fairy tale is not the TRUE story of creation. Unfortunately, we don’t have a true/provable story of creation, but I refuse to accept this concoction of a butchered excuse for literature….
for it is well known that when in a sexual heat the male of the species (in this case human species) does not think clearely!
Jeffrey, you must have dissappointing sex if that is only the case. No offence, just jesting
But I digress.