In the Garden: 1.

[ttruscott]

Genesis 2:18 - And the LORD GOD said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:20 - And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Adam was supposedly given life in a state of moral cleanliness, variously described as being one of innocence, purity, sinlessness, righteousness, and sometimes even holiness. The general idea is that Adam was faultless in GOD's sight before he disobeyed the command in Eden.

Yet scripture says: It is not good that the man should be alone. Who is at fault for his aloneness, his not goodness? Well Adam certainly could not help the state of his creation so it wasn't him...yet the implication remains that God created something not quite perfect which is contrary to His attributes and not possible.

In fact in Gen 1:31, everything was very good. So, in all this goodness, how did it slip by that Adam's state was not good? Well, to my mind, since I don't think that God makes anything sort of good nor almost perfect, not lets things slip by, I think it must be a clue pointing somewhere else. Perhaps something not good slipped into Adam's experience between Gen 1:31 and Gen 2:18?

We do have proof that something became not good between these two verses as Peter tells us,
2 Peter 2:4 - For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.
We know the angels fell before the 'fall' in the garden as the snake arrived in a sinful state. So obviously not everything is being told here but hints are given.

Perhaps the evil angels are not even being considered in the everything of verse 1:31 and so the phrase everything was very good is meant to apply only to God's physical creation of the earth (perhaps the whole physical universe) but not to the prior creation of spirits, the angels, some of whom were not so good.

Another thing not usually considered is that IF the fallen angels were being held to be the role model of badness for the sinful church, then their badness could be called 'good' for the purpose of chastening, converting and sanctifying the fallen church.

[Of course most people ignore all this and usually not good gets twisted to mean not bad.

It is a fundamental hint to me that if the ordinary meaning of scripture is interpreted to mean the opposite of that ordinary meaning by everyone, then the chances are that everyone is bending the scripture to mean what it has to mean to satisfy their orthodox take on reality. In other words if you gave this verse to someone who did not know the bible and asked them to interpret it, they would answer that there was something wrong, something not right about Adam's aloneness.]

So does not good to be alone mean “Adam was in rebellion to GOD's will for him,” or just about anything else?

Does alone imply separation from God in the garden due to sin? Or just "unable to produce children" as per the orthodox?

Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD had to make an “help meet”, (NIV - suitable helper), to fix Adam's bad situation, but this is not irrefutable proof Adam was in rebellion because it is possible to interpret “helper” so that it means “reproductive partner” rather than “someone who would be instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion.”

And “suitable” is not proof either, because it too can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal” rather than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else had to be found whom he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn about his spiritual marriage to HIM”.

Let's just look at the lead up to this:
Genesis 2:15,16 - And the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man, saying...

It is obvious that after being commanded by God that Adam is either in rebellion to the command (unrighteous) or in compliance (righteous).

Now, if Adam was righteous he would be faithfully following GOD's will for him, viz., willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?

Well, it seems that, in addition to dressing and keeping the garden, et cetera, GOD wanted him to get married and that, to get his wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly conscious sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first and they had all been shown to be unsuitable:

Genesis 2:20 - And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an animal was not what HE wanted? Moreover, just whose idea was it that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have been GOD's, could it?

Since this was the situation, how can we believe that Adam was righteous, preferring to comply with GOD's will above all else? How can Adam be this reluctant/rebellious to doing this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to fulfil HIS purpose for him?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

In the garden 2;

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was [more] crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you [above] all the livestock and all the wild animals!

Rather than look at naked and crafty being the same in substance and all that might imply, I've become captured by the words that are not in this text....[more] and [above].

ie Gen 3:1 serpent 5175 was 1961 subtil 6175 beast 2416 field 7704:
and Gen 3:14 thou 859 hast done 6213 cursed 779 cattle 929, beast 2416 field 7704;

Now when I try to figure out why, in the face of the serpent's subtilty and cursedness, the other animals are even mentioned at all, I get nowhere in terms of traditional Christian orthodoxy. I can find no reason... Therefore the idea that the serpent was more subtil and cursed above the other animal seems as good as any,

except that it implies the the other animals are subtil and cursed too.

Given the fact, to my mind, that GOD does not create even animals (ie no soul?) as crafty, ie sinful, AND that no one gets cursed without a true free will decision to sin, these animals would seem to be a cut above the ordinary cows and lions of today,

able to sin in a guilty way so as to be cursed for it. Not your average chicken....

I don't think we are actually talking about a real snake, do you? An animal with no soul/spirit? It is obvious that serpent represents his deceitful nature, not his physical shape. So, here we have a sinful person alluded to as an animal represented as worse than other persons, (ie able to sin), also represented as animals...and where the heck does that take us?

I have absolutely no idea but that is what is written, sigh.

Peace, Ted

[shunyadragon]

In the garden 2;

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was [more] crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you [above] all the livestock and all the wild animals!

Rather than look at naked and crafty being the same in substance and all that might imply, I've become captured by the words that are not in this text....[more] and [above].

ie Gen 3:1 serpent 5175 was 1961 subtil 6175 beast 2416 field 7704:
and Gen 3:14 thou 859 hast done 6213 cursed 779 cattle 929, beast 2416 field 7704;

Now when I try to figure out why, in the face of the serpent's subtilty and cursedness, the other animals are even mentioned at all, I get nowhere in terms of traditional Christian orthodoxy. I can find no reason... Therefore the idea that the serpent was more subtil and cursed above the other animal seems as good as any,

except that it implies the the other animals are subtil and cursed too.

Given the fact, to my mind, that GOD does not create even animals (ie no soul?) as crafty, ie sinful, AND that no one gets cursed without a true free will decision to sin, these animals would seem to be a cut above the ordinary cows and lions of today,

able to sin in a guilty way so as to be cursed for it. Not your average chicken....

I don't think we are actually talking about a real snake, do you? An animal with no soul/spirit? It is obvious that serpent represents his deceitful nature, not his physical shape. So, here we have a sinful person alluded to as an animal represented as worse than other persons, (ie able to sin), also represented as animals...and where the heck does that take us?

I have absolutely no idea but that is what is written, sigh.

Peace, Ted

Yep, it is tough to relate to this ancient world view in the real world of today. The Jews do well with relying on tradition, Midrash and a rather heavy dose of pragmatism. The Christians do not fair so well with clinging to beliefs of the idealic creation, the Fall, original sin, and poof!!! the whole universe in six days.