Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
Why the Sudden Shame?
I had always found the logic of this series of events rather curious. A few verses back it's made clear to us that Adam & Eve are not ashamed to be naked: Genesis 2:25 - "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed". I can understand how eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a sin and caused the fall of man, but I don't see the direct relation between that and why nakedness suddenly becomes a bad thing or something to be ashamed of.
"Looking at self is a fruit of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. [...] When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, they began to be self-conscious. They started looking at themselves. They knew they were naked. Until then, they weren't even aware of that. In fact, they were clothed with a kind of spiritual glory before they fell, and they lived in the presence of Almighty God without shame. After eating of the forbidden Tree, they lost that glory and began to be selfish and desire to escape from the presence of Almighty God." (Christian Faith - Tree of Life)
That makes a lot of sense. The nakedness wasn't so much the sin than the means through which Adam & Eve's self-consciousness manifested itself. It's funny how - besides the obvious disobedience of God's direct order - Adam & Eve's first sin was something we don't even see as a sin these days: self-awareness! But this article lays it out fairly well I think. Before they eat of the fruit, they were too busy being in constant fellowship with God to even think about themselves for a split-second. The second we start looking at ourselves we introduce the possibility for sinning whether it be through worry and dissatisfaction, or worse yet, pride.
"A really humble man will not be what most people call "humble" nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. [...] he will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all." (Mere Christianity - The Great Sin)
(back to Genesis 3)
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
GENESIS 3:1 - A "Crafty" Serpent? Talking Animals?
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden '?"
A "Crafty" Serpent?
I had always assumed from quick reads that craftiness was supposed to be attributed to Satan, but after inspecting multiple translations, it seems clear to me that the verse maps the trait to the animal itself. But how can an animal be "crafty" unless it possesses a level of intelligence which no animal we know of today does?
"It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been." (John Wesley Commentary) This makes sense, considering the degenerative effects of the fall of man, which would have affected every single thing, including animals. However, this answer leads me to another question...
Talking animals?!
The satisfactory answer above as to why we no longer find crafty talking snakes anymore leads me to another question: does that mean that - at least before the fall of man - animals used to be able to talk?
The most common supportive answer for this was that because Eve didn't seem surprised by the snake speaking to her, logically, animals must have spoken. Rational Christianity shows how you can accept those same two points without coming to the same conclusion: "As for Eve, she didn't necessarily have the same perspective we do on talking animals. We know from history as well as our own experience that animals don't talk. We also grew up with stories of animals talking, and were taught to regard them as imaginary. Adam and Eve didn't have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. They may not even have been alive for very long when the incident occurred. For all they knew, animals did speak from time to time." Inconclusive.
Numbers 22:28: And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Now this verse too could be interpreted as being supportive, but looking at multiple translations and the lexicon for the word 'opened' (pathach: to open wide; specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve) it doesn't seem clear cut. Inconclusive.
A House Church Network Association article adds to the above by asking the - admittedly intriguing - question: "Who did Adam and Eve talk about? [...] there was not only no one else to talk about (except perhaps to talk about God), but there was not yet any sin and gossip [...] So the traditional answer would be there was no one to talk about. Except... Could it be that there were others to talk about?" They go on to mention two other supportive points for talking animals:
1) Genesis 2:18, God himself notes that "it is not good for the man to be alone" and so he makes the animals.
It would seem to make sense that God, recognizing a human's need for companionship and communication would create animals with the ability to speak. But you could then also argue the opposite side saying that 's perhaps one of the reasons why he ended up needing to create Eve. Inconclusive
2) The animals are named by Adam.
Interesting point. If the animals can't speak, why bother having Adam name them? Just for himself and God to appreciate? Maybe, maybe not. Inconclusive.
This issue remains for me... inconclusive.
(back to Genesis 3)
A "Crafty" Serpent?
I had always assumed from quick reads that craftiness was supposed to be attributed to Satan, but after inspecting multiple translations, it seems clear to me that the verse maps the trait to the animal itself. But how can an animal be "crafty" unless it possesses a level of intelligence which no animal we know of today does?
"It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been." (John Wesley Commentary) This makes sense, considering the degenerative effects of the fall of man, which would have affected every single thing, including animals. However, this answer leads me to another question...
Talking animals?!
The satisfactory answer above as to why we no longer find crafty talking snakes anymore leads me to another question: does that mean that - at least before the fall of man - animals used to be able to talk?
The most common supportive answer for this was that because Eve didn't seem surprised by the snake speaking to her, logically, animals must have spoken. Rational Christianity shows how you can accept those same two points without coming to the same conclusion: "As for Eve, she didn't necessarily have the same perspective we do on talking animals. We know from history as well as our own experience that animals don't talk. We also grew up with stories of animals talking, and were taught to regard them as imaginary. Adam and Eve didn't have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. They may not even have been alive for very long when the incident occurred. For all they knew, animals did speak from time to time." Inconclusive.
Numbers 22:28: And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Now this verse too could be interpreted as being supportive, but looking at multiple translations and the lexicon for the word 'opened' (pathach: to open wide; specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve) it doesn't seem clear cut. Inconclusive.
A House Church Network Association article adds to the above by asking the - admittedly intriguing - question: "Who did Adam and Eve talk about? [...] there was not only no one else to talk about (except perhaps to talk about God), but there was not yet any sin and gossip [...] So the traditional answer would be there was no one to talk about. Except... Could it be that there were others to talk about?" They go on to mention two other supportive points for talking animals:
1) Genesis 2:18, God himself notes that "it is not good for the man to be alone" and so he makes the animals.
It would seem to make sense that God, recognizing a human's need for companionship and communication would create animals with the ability to speak. But you could then also argue the opposite side saying that 's perhaps one of the reasons why he ended up needing to create Eve. Inconclusive
2) The animals are named by Adam.
Interesting point. If the animals can't speak, why bother having Adam name them? Just for himself and God to appreciate? Maybe, maybe not. Inconclusive.
This issue remains for me... inconclusive.
(back to Genesis 3)
Friday, February 8, 2008
Significance of Adam's Rib
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man
Significance of Adam's Rib?
The question of why God chose to create Eve out of Adam's rib is one I would have never thought to ask myself until Pastor Dan explained it once in a message. One thing that stuck with me in particular was the following quotation:
That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. (Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary)
Was there ever a more poetic, succinct or explanatory passage of the beauty and equality of God's creation? Nuff said indeed.
(back to Genesis 2)
Significance of Adam's Rib?
The question of why God chose to create Eve out of Adam's rib is one I would have never thought to ask myself until Pastor Dan explained it once in a message. One thing that stuck with me in particular was the following quotation:
That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. (Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary)
Was there ever a more poetic, succinct or explanatory passage of the beauty and equality of God's creation? Nuff said indeed.
(back to Genesis 2)
Thursday, February 7, 2008
GENESIS 2:10-14 - River Details
Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
River Details
Up to this point, in reading the account of Genesis and the creation of the universe, everything is understandably brief and summarized. With regards to landscapes, plants, animals etc. we're only told what we absolutely need to know. Given this approach I figure - and this is how I've been reading Genesis thus far - anything that is mentioned in detail is done so for a reason.
Having said that, I'm at a loss to explain why it is that five incredibly detailed verses are devoted to these four rivers within Eden: names, descriptions, surrounding areas etc. Up until this point everything, including mankind, has been described in very broad and poetic terms and these verses just seem to stick out like a sore thumb both in their written style and detail.
Does anyone have any ideas?
(back to Genesis 2)
River Details
Up to this point, in reading the account of Genesis and the creation of the universe, everything is understandably brief and summarized. With regards to landscapes, plants, animals etc. we're only told what we absolutely need to know. Given this approach I figure - and this is how I've been reading Genesis thus far - anything that is mentioned in detail is done so for a reason.
Having said that, I'm at a loss to explain why it is that five incredibly detailed verses are devoted to these four rivers within Eden: names, descriptions, surrounding areas etc. Up until this point everything, including mankind, has been described in very broad and poetic terms and these verses just seem to stick out like a sore thumb both in their written style and detail.
Does anyone have any ideas?
(back to Genesis 2)
Sunday, February 3, 2008
GENESIS 1:22 - Females Before Eve
God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
Females Before Eve
Given that God tells the animals to multiply, I assume that means there must have been female animals at this point. But this is before Eve has even been created by God. This doesn't really present a problem for me in the typical sense with regards to logic or contradiction but rather, symbolism? It seems to me that if females existed before Eve was created than the entire symbolism of her being created from Adam's rib seems somehow, diminished. Or am I missing the point? Does this chronology of events give even more significance to the human race and/or human females by virtue of the fact that he comes up with this different way of creating human females vs. female animals?
Another possibility could be that my assumptions are wrong and that animals had a way of multiplying without male and female animals having sex. This doesn't seems so far-fetched to me despite there being no modern day equivalent, just like how we're told that all animals were vegetarian before the fall.
Either way, I've had problems finding any other sources that address this issue. Unresolved.
(back to Genesis 1)
Females Before Eve
Given that God tells the animals to multiply, I assume that means there must have been female animals at this point. But this is before Eve has even been created by God. This doesn't really present a problem for me in the typical sense with regards to logic or contradiction but rather, symbolism? It seems to me that if females existed before Eve was created than the entire symbolism of her being created from Adam's rib seems somehow, diminished. Or am I missing the point? Does this chronology of events give even more significance to the human race and/or human females by virtue of the fact that he comes up with this different way of creating human females vs. female animals?
Another possibility could be that my assumptions are wrong and that animals had a way of multiplying without male and female animals having sex. This doesn't seems so far-fetched to me despite there being no modern day equivalent, just like how we're told that all animals were vegetarian before the fall.
Either way, I've had problems finding any other sources that address this issue. Unresolved.
(back to Genesis 1)
Saturday, February 2, 2008
GENESIS 1:20 - Did God Use Evolution? Contradicting Interpretations?
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
Did God Use Evolution? 1 day = Millions of Years?
The big questions in Genesis - or for many, the whole Bible - deals with "science vs. creationism ". While this applies to plants and geography (mentioned in previous verses), usually the great debate rages around animals and in particular, evolution.
It's no surprise that Christians like myself who on the one hand say they believe in the infallibility of the Bible become squeamish when encountered by the case for evolution. As a result, I often found myself trying to draw connections between the two. One of the arguments and explanations put forth was that maybe God used evolution. Maybe the "one day" stated in the Bible really did mean millions or billions of years.
"The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:29; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly takes place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, etc.) entered the world." (Answers in Genesis)
I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. There can be no middleground on this issue. Many Christians - including myself - are eager to adopt this view in the name of defending the infallibility of the Bible, but in doing so, it's ironically the very thing we destroy:
"...once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)."
Agreed. And this is definitely something you need to come to grips with before seriously studying the Bible.
Contradicting Interpretations?
That said, I did find it quite disturbing that only four verses earlier in my previous post, Genesis 1:16 (The Moon Only Reflects Light), my answer there seemingly advocated a contradicting view to the one offered here.
I'm not actually troubled by this because it's clear to me how these situations are distinct and as such only give the appearance of a contradiction. That said, I think it's noteworthy because I can also empathize with those who see it as such and by virtue of that, are willing to write off the Bible.
(back to Genesis 1)
Did God Use Evolution? 1 day = Millions of Years?
The big questions in Genesis - or for many, the whole Bible - deals with "science vs. creationism ". While this applies to plants and geography (mentioned in previous verses), usually the great debate rages around animals and in particular, evolution.
It's no surprise that Christians like myself who on the one hand say they believe in the infallibility of the Bible become squeamish when encountered by the case for evolution. As a result, I often found myself trying to draw connections between the two. One of the arguments and explanations put forth was that maybe God used evolution. Maybe the "one day" stated in the Bible really did mean millions or billions of years.
"The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:29; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly takes place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, etc.) entered the world." (Answers in Genesis)
I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. There can be no middleground on this issue. Many Christians - including myself - are eager to adopt this view in the name of defending the infallibility of the Bible, but in doing so, it's ironically the very thing we destroy:
"...once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)."
Agreed. And this is definitely something you need to come to grips with before seriously studying the Bible.
Contradicting Interpretations?
That said, I did find it quite disturbing that only four verses earlier in my previous post, Genesis 1:16 (The Moon Only Reflects Light), my answer there seemingly advocated a contradicting view to the one offered here.
I'm not actually troubled by this because it's clear to me how these situations are distinct and as such only give the appearance of a contradiction. That said, I think it's noteworthy because I can also empathize with those who see it as such and by virtue of that, are willing to write off the Bible.
(back to Genesis 1)
Friday, February 1, 2008
GENESIS 1:16 - The Moon only Reflects Light
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
The Moon only Reflects Light
The wording of this verse lends itself to being questioned in "light" of what we know (ha ha ha) today: the moon does not actually emanate any light of its own but only reflects light from the Sun (Answers in Genesis). So is this a "mistake" in the Bible?
"This is not a "mistake" but the use of everyday observer language. How, then, would God describe a process of evolution in such observer language if this was how he chose to create the species? [...] The Bible isn't that kind of book - it isn't intended to teach us science." (Harmonizing the Bible and Mainstream Science)
Of course this is true and, as with anything else, context is everything.
(back to Genesis 1)
The Moon only Reflects Light
The wording of this verse lends itself to being questioned in "light" of what we know (ha ha ha) today: the moon does not actually emanate any light of its own but only reflects light from the Sun (Answers in Genesis). So is this a "mistake" in the Bible?
"This is not a "mistake" but the use of everyday observer language. How, then, would God describe a process of evolution in such observer language if this was how he chose to create the species? [...] The Bible isn't that kind of book - it isn't intended to teach us science." (Harmonizing the Bible and Mainstream Science)
Of course this is true and, as with anything else, context is everything.
(back to Genesis 1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)