The first sacrifice documented

[ElsanRandiMom]

in the bible...

do you believe it was ordered by God, or done from a heartfelt thanks without directive from God?

why?

[Lulav]

Which sacrifice are you speaking of? The one by G-d as some interpret it, or the one given by Abel?

[ElsanRandiMom]

Which sacrifice are you speaking of? The one by G-d as some interpret it, or the one given by Abel?
Abel.

(one by God??)

[Lulav]

Abel.

(one by God??) Some interpret Genesis 3:21 as the L-RD slew a lamb to cover their sins, some interpret it as they were in a body that was more spiritual and light than flesh and the skins he covered them with is what we call our flesh.

Depends on how you look at it I guess.

As far as Abel. The sages taught that the Torah has always been in existence, just not written down. That is why we see that Abel's sacrifice was acceptable because he knew that it must come from the best he had, and also to include the fat which was later given in as a law of sacrifice ( exo 29 and others) , while Cain only brought something from the land, but not the firstfruits. Abel respected the Creator, while Cain did not, thus showing forth his sin.

[NavyGuy7]

That is some weird interpretations, Lulav. But I think it was given out of heartfelt thanks, to be honest. I don't remember anywhere in that chapter "thou shalt prepare a sacrifice" type of directive, after all.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Some interpret Genesis 3:21 as the L-RD slew a lamb to cover their sins, some interpret it as they were in a body that was more spiritual and light than flesh and the skins he covered them with is what we call our flesh.

Depends on how you look at it I guess.

As far as Abel. The sages taught that the Torah has always been in existence, just not written down. That is why we see that Abel's sacrifice was acceptable because he knew that it must come from the best he had, and also to include the fat which was later given in as a law of sacrifice ( exo 29 and others) , while Cain only brought something from the land, but not the firstfruits. Abel respected the Creator, while Cain did not, thus showing forth his sin.
forgive me but I think that God sacrifice thing is really begging the text

I have a different take on what happened as well, but that's another thread (with Cain and Abel's offerings)

[Steve Petersen]

God slew an animal to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness.

[Lulav]

That is some weird interpretations, Lulav. But I think it was given out of heartfelt thanks, to be honest. I don't remember anywhere in that chapter "thou shalt prepare a sacrifice" type of directive, after all.
I thought that EnRM was asking for an MJ Or J opinion and that is what I gave. :)

It is well known in midrash that this is what happened but I am sure that the church doesn't teach this as their understanding of G-d isn't as the same as Jewish understanding. :)

When you study the bible in the original language, Hebrew these things are more readily understood but the translatios and mistranslations obscure a lot as well as many times change the true meaning.

For instance I will give you an example from the NT. I discussed this with my guests last night at my Seder.

John 19:36 tells us that the scripture was fulfilled ( from the Psalms) that not a bone of Yeshua would be broken

Yet in Luke 22:19 it tells us that Yeshua broke the bread and said, this is my body.............

If you go back to the original Greek, two words are used that are translated into English as broke or broken.

the first means to literally brake in two, but when Yeshua spoke of it in relation to his body this word is connected only to bread, and the 'breaking of bread' meaning that his body was the true bread, the manna from heaven we are to partake of and much more but I don't want to overwhelm. :)

[Lulav]

forgive me but I think that God sacrifice thing is really begging the text

I have a different take on what happened as well, but that's another thread (with Cain and Abel's offerings)

Have you read it in Hebrew? Check this out to see what I am saying skins of light and flesh (http://www.yashanet.com/studies/judaism101/sidebars/ohr.htm)

The Hebrew word for "Light" is "OR" (variant: 'or), spelled "aleph vav resh"
(Remember, Hebrew is written from right to left)
The Hebrew word for "Skin" is also "OR" (variant: 'or), but is spelled "ayin vav resh"

Interesting, no? ;)


What do you think that G-d covered them with? Human skin? The skins of animals? If they were animals, he must have slew them, right?

Sin must be covered by blood atonement, that is his rule. He abides by this even to the extent of coming in flesh himself as Yeshua and having his blood shed for our sins, from all those committed from the garden to the end of time. :bow:

I guess I am not sure what you are asking to debate here?:scratch:

[visionary]

Man-made "aprons" of fig leaves will not suffice. "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21).

Thereby ". . . He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness" (Isaiah 61:10), fashioned from the perfect righteousness of the Lamb. But in order to do this, the innocent blood of the sacrifice must be shed, for "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).

[A_Pioneer]

There is no mention of anything dying at this time and there is another way to have skins to clothe them, this is the shed skin of the serpent.

They shed the glory of God for skin of their tempter.

First recorded death was the slaying of Abel.

$.02.

[ElsanRandiMom]

God slew an animal to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness.
True, but it was not a sacrifice in the same way.... one is for adoration and exhaultation... the other seems to me to be a covering of sin, which personally I don't believe is necessarily all God wants from sacrifice (either physical or in Christ - i.e. it is deeper than being cleansed... it is about relationship)

[ElsanRandiMom]

There is no mention of anything dying at this time and there is another way to have skins to clothe them, this is the shed skin of the serpent.

They shed the glory of God for skin of their tempter.

First recorded death was the slaying of Abel.

$.02.
can you expand on this

[ElsanRandiMom]

Have you read it in Hebrew? Check this out to see what I am saying skins of light and flesh (http://www.yashanet.com/studies/judaism101/sidebars/ohr.htm)

The Hebrew word for "Light" is "OR" (variant: 'or), spelled "aleph vav resh"
(Remember, Hebrew is written from right to left)
The Hebrew word for "Skin" is also "OR" (variant: 'or), but is spelled "ayin vav resh"

Interesting, no? ;)


What do you think that G-d covered them with? Human skin? The skins of animals? If they were animals, he must have slew them, right?

Sin must be covered by blood atonement, that is his rule. He abides by this even to the extent of coming in flesh himself as Yeshua and having his blood shed for our sins, from all those committed from the garden to the end of time. :bow:

I guess I am not sure what you are asking to debate here?:scratch:
see my above post on the intent... and you'll understand. :)

as for putting it in debate... I did that more as a caution than because I wanted to debate. I was concerned that those who shared would debate much more than myself.

[Lulav]

in the bible...

do you believe it was ordered by God, or done from a heartfelt thanks without directive from God?

why?OK, I am going to go back to this question and the simplest answer. I guess I thought you wanted more, but it is actually less, that is why I was confused as to what you wanted to know and why you put it here in debate. :)

So you only want to talk about what you believe to be the first sacrificed animal in the bible? :)

1. I don't believe that man knows what pleases G-d to automatically make an offering like this.
2.He needs to be taught that all that we have comes from him, we might 'assume' that we could show appreciation by giving some back to him. but..........
3. to know instinctively that it should be of the first of our flock and also to offer the fat with it, ( the best it could also be translated) would not be humanly understood, this would have to be taught by G-d, the creator himself.

4. Abel did not give the best, he gave, but not the best, the first fruits, which he must have known should have gone to G-d, why else would he be accused of sinning by G-d? ;) ( see verse 7)

You also have to be careful which translation you read, those who try to make it easier to read actually obscure the meaning by switching the words around. the NIV is famous for that, especially in Genesis.
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. KJV

1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." NIV

Both misconstrue the meaning of how G-d reacted. It should say that he accepted Abel's offering but not Cains. Now really no where does it say that Abel sacrifices this animal, there is no altar, or anything to indicate that any blood was shed, now is there? It only says he brought it to the L-RD. The first blood shed is actually Abels. ;)

The King James translates well up to verse 7, then the NIV translates it better.

Abel brought the first fruits and the best of his flock, this can be seen best by going back to the Hebrew. Whereas Abel did not, he only brought some produce from his field. The L-RD requires that we offer him our firstfruits, the best of the crop , and that he gets it before we even eat of it ourselves. this can be seen especially this time of year, as it most likely was in their day, during the Spring and probably right after Passover. Or it could have been that Abel brought a pre-Pasach Lamb, which would be the best, without blemish, and that Abel who should have brought the first cutting of barley as a firstfruits offering, did not.

Abel brought the best because that is what he was taught to do to respect his creator, Cain did not respect his torah and therefore sinned by bringing or offering what he felt was good enough. G-d couldn't accuse someone of sinning if he hadn't told them first what they needed to do. And he couldn't accuse them of sinning without proper instruction. This is Torah but this back then would have been oral Torah, that G-d spoke to them.

7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."Abel did what he knew would please G-d, Cain tried to do what he thought would please G-d and got angry when it didn't. And mankind still tries to do that today, even though we now have it written down what He wants us to do and what pleases Him, still man thinks he can out-think G-d and come up with ways to please him that He never asked for.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Quote:
7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
Abel did what he knew would please G-d, Cain tried to do what he thought would please G-d and got angry when it didn't. And mankind still tries to do that today, even though we now have it written down what He wants us to do and what pleases Him, still man thinks he can out-think G-d and come up with ways to please him that He never asked for.

But really, isn't Jewish history full of times when man said "I want this" and God said "that's not good" (such as when Israel asked for a king) but ended up giving in anyway... I kinda percieve this as why the Jews were given the ability to make law (because they insisted on their own way so many times).

[A_Pioneer]

can you expand on this

The scripture says what it says. He, Hashem made for Adam and his wife garments of skin,and he clothed them.
No mention of killing an animal. No mention of a sacrifice.

I have a small problem with a sacrifice, a sacrifice for what? Has Adam and his wife repented? Was the sin atoned for? The very next passages have Hashem expelling them from Eden.

The tempter sheds his skin, no death or sacrifice is needed, garments of the skin of their antagonist as a reminder of their fallen state might be in order.

Adam made in the image of God, sins and becomes a dirtbag, far, far from the glory he had as the image of God.

As long as we know the scripture says what it says and we accept scriptue as it is.

Where else can we go with this?

[ElsanRandiMom]

you speak of the expulsion like it was punishment... it clearly states it was for their protection...???

[Lulav]

Quote:
7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
Abel did what he knew would please G-d, Cain tried to do what he thought would please G-d and got angry when it didn't. And mankind still tries to do that today, even though we now have it written down what He wants us to do and what pleases Him, still man thinks he can out-think G-d and come up with ways to please him that He never asked for.

But really, isn't Jewish history full of times when man said "I want this" and God said "that's not good" (such as when Israel asked for a king) but ended up giving in anyway... I kinda percieve this as why the Jews were given the ability to make law (because they insisted on their own way so many times).That was not a law. HaShem let them have what they asked for regarding a King to show them how wrong it was. He is the King of the Universe, and he did not want to force us to want him as our King so he set up a human king over them, and what a disaster that was! Saul almost wiped us off the face of the earth by his disobedience!

He wants us to turn to him to want only him over us, don't confuse that with his laws and ordinances. ;)

[Lulav]

you speak of the expulsion like it was punishment... it clearly states it was for their protection...??? Where are you referring to?

[ElsanRandiMom]

Where are you referring to?
from the garden...

and I realize the king thing was not law... but I think things like that lead to that allowance.

[A_Pioneer]

you speak of the expulsion like it was punishment... it clearly states it was for their protection...???
A dirtbag being eternal like God?!
Banishment to me is kicked out with just cause.
Remember the curse put upon Adam, his wife and the serpent.

[Lulav]

It was for the protection of the tree of life

3:22And the L-RD 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: 3:23Therefore the L-RD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24So 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.

to keep it safe from fallen man getting a hold of that.

[ElsanRandiMom]

A dirtbag being eternal like God?!
Banishment to me is kicked out with just cause.
Remember the curse put upon Adam, his wife and the serpent.
working was the punishment, and pain in childbirth sure... but not expulsion.

why is Adam a dirtbag? he has sinned no more than you or me.

[ElsanRandiMom]

It was for the protection of the tree of life



to keep it safe from fallen man getting a hold of that.

I think it was to protect MAN from the tree and living eternally in a state of sin... not to protect the tree.

[Lulav]

from the garden...

and I realize the king thing was not law... but I think things like that lead to that allowance.I don't believe in man thinking he can maneuver G-d to do as he please. It's the other way around. There is no allowance, this is what man thinks he can do and he's always wrong.

[A_Pioneer]

working was the punishment, and pain in childbirth sure... but not expulsion.

why is Adam a dirtbag? he has sinned no more than you or me.
Until we are washed clean we are all dirtbags.
That is what atonement is all about!
All have sinned and fallen short.

Repent and come back to God and be holy.

[Lulav]

I think it was to protect MAN from the tree and living eternally in a state of sin... not to protect the tree.

3:24So he drove out (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01644&version=kjv) the man; (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0120&version=kjv) and he placed (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07931&version=kjv) at the east (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06924&version=kjv) of the garden (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01588&version=kjv) of Eden (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05731&version=kjv) Cherubims, (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03742&version=kjv) and a flaming (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03858&version=kjv) sword (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02719&version=kjv) which turned every way (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02015&version=kjv), to keep (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08104&version=kjv) the way (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01870&version=kjv) of the tree (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06086&version=kjv) of life. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02416&version=kjv)Click on the words, keep, way tree life and see what they mean.

[Lulav]

Keruvim guard the throne of G-d. ;)

Mankind in Adam was basically married to G-d, he was created in his image, they were Echad, one, as long as there was obedience. When he sinned, or cheated, or committed adultery by listening to the serpent, the L-RD divorced him ( both Adam and Chavah) .

[ElsanRandiMom]

22And 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: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

[Lulav]

and the very next verse says he drove him out. :) He didn't go voluntarily. sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Sounds like there was paradise where you didn't have to work for your bread, that the ground was self sufficient, but not outside of it.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Keruvim guard the throne of G-d. ;)

Mankind in Adam was basically married to G-d, he was created in his image, they were Echad, one, as long as there was obedience. When he sinned, or cheated, or committed adultery by listening to the serpent, the L-RD divorced him ( both Adam and Chavah) .
problem is that Eve lied before the tree even occured.

[ElsanRandiMom]

and the very next verse says he drove him out. :) He didn't go voluntarily.

Sounds like there was paradise where you didn't have to work for your bread, that the ground was self sufficient, but not outside of it.
sure but it clearly states the reason was not punishment (at least IMO it does)

if I drive you out of say, a burning building (which the garden had the potential to be to mankind) you thank me, you don't feel punished.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Until we are washed clean we are all dirtbags.
That is what atonement is all about!
All have sinned and fallen short.

Repent and come back to God and be holy.
so there was no salvation for those that came before Christ? I hardly believe that God would do that. Jews were justified by the law... I'm sure that Adam was justified by following the directives given after the fall. Whether he met them is debatable, but still... I don't believe he will be forever condemned for making a mistake.

[A_Pioneer]

so there was no salvation for those that came before Christ? I hardly believe that God would do that. Jews were justified by the law... I'm sure that Adam was justified by following the directives given after the fall. Whether he met them is debatable, but still... I don't believe he will be forever condemned for making a mistake.

I agree! He had a good long time to alter his way.
Altho there is no record of his repentance.
There is no doubt he knew God and believed him.
Read Jn. 5:24. I believe the "Word of the Lord" came to Adam just as it did to all the patriarchs.

I have never blieved the Christian rethoric that all Jews will burn in hell. How un-godly.

Shalom

[Lulav]

sure but it clearly states the reason was not punishment (at least IMO it does)

if I drive you out of say, a burning building (which the garden had the potential to be to mankind) you thank me, you don't feel punished.

Why don't we let scripture define scripture? :)


Ex 6:1 Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.
Ex 23:28And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
Ex 23:29I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.
Ex 23:30By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.
Ex 23:31And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
Ex 33:2And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

I don't think any of these would be thankful for being driven out, do you?

[Lulav]

Originally Posted by Lulav
Keruvim guard the throne of G-d. ;)

Mankind in Adam was basically married to G-d, he was created in his image, they were Echad, one, as long as there was obedience. When he sinned, or cheated, or committed adultery by listening to the serpent, the L-RD divorced him ( both Adam and Chavah) .


problem is that Eve lied before the tree even occured. What problem? I don't see your connection, what has that got to do with what I posted? :scratch:

And where do you think Chavah lied before taking of the tree? Please post scripture to back up your claims.

[ElsanRandiMom]

What problem? I don't see your connection, what has that got to do with what I posted? :scratch:

And where do you think Chavah lied before taking of the tree? Please post scripture to back up your claims.
she said God told them not to touch the tree... Adam was told to tend the garden. How do you tend to something you cannot touch?

she twisted the truth

but then it is my contention that it is not the sin that condemns but the knowledge of good and evil (which makes me in a small number of people but this is how I feel)

[A_Pioneer]

she said God told them not to touch the tree... Adam was told to tend the garden. How do you tend to something you cannot touch?

she twisted the truth

but then it is my contention that it is not the sin that condemns but the knowledge of good and evil (which makes me in a small number of people but this is how I feel)
Had they not partaken of the 'Tree of Konowledge' there would have been no sin, no knowledge of good & evil and they would have found their way to the tree of life and lived forever in Gan Eden. But, alas we needed a savior to bring us back to Gan Eden, the second man Adam/Yeshua, made in the image of God, 'perfect' in every way to shed 'perfect blood' to atone for sin.

Shalom u'vracha

[ElsanRandiMom]

Had they not partaken of the 'Tree of Konowledge' there would have been no sin, no knowledge of good & evil and they would have found their way to the tree of life and lived forever in Gan Eden. But, alas we needed a savior to bring us back to Gan Eden, the second man Adam/Yeshua, made in the image of God, 'perfect' in every way to shed 'perfect blood' to atone for sin.

Shalom u'vracha
when does it say the tree created sin? sin is missing the mark (and in most cases making a mistake). the tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil... not the tree OF good and evil. We, through our knowledge, condemn ourselves for sin, and I feel Christ died to free us from this self condemnation and this knowledge...

[A_Pioneer]

when does it say the tree created sin? sin is missing the mark (and in most cases making a mistake). the tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil... not the tree OF good and evil. We, through our knowledge, condemn ourselves for sin, and I feel Christ died to free us from this self condemnation and this knowledge...
So, Yeshua came so we can be forever dumb?

Disobedience to the 'word of God' is sin!

Adam as 'echad' adam/eve received instructions to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Man created sin/disobedience. Adam ate of the tree and his eyes were opened and he was naked! He was ashamed! Self condemnation. God had not said you will be naked, he said you shall surely die and after a good long time Adam and Eve died. Adam was spiritually dead when he partook of the tree. We therefore needed a life giving spirit! Yeshua.

The 'truth' shall set you free.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Why don't we let scripture define scripture? :)


Ex 6:1 Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.
Ex 23:28And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
Ex 23:29I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.
Ex 23:30By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.
Ex 23:31And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
Ex 33:2And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

I don't think any of these would be thankful for being driven out, do you?
they didn't want to leave paradise, no... but it again, didn't have to be a punishment, but a natural consequence of action. if you touch fire you get burned. they touched the tree and therefore had to leave the garden so as not to be stuck that way forever.

[ElsanRandiMom]

So, Yeshua came so we can be forever dumb?

Disobedience to the 'word of God' is sin!

Adam as 'echad' adam/eve received instructions to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Man created sin/disobedience. Adam ate of the tree and his eyes were opened and he was naked! He was ashamed! Self condemnation. God had not said you will be naked, he said you shall surely die and after a good long time Adam and Eve died. Adam was spiritually dead when he partook of the tree. We therefore needed a life giving spirit! Yeshua.

The 'truth' shall set you free.
Even Solomon didn't want to distinguish good from evil... even he felt inadequate and prayed to God that he would do it right. Doesn't that say something? When the wisest man ever has reservations about doing something he knows is not his place?

disobedience is missing the mark yes.

what does the "his eyes were opened" mean to you? to me it means he understood what he was (i.e. naked). Spiritual death is mentioned no where in the bible. It has been inferred but is not in any scripture anywhere in any direct way. Why, with all the authors and all the spiritual men led by God to write, would this not be mentioned in an outright way?

[A_Pioneer]

Even Solomon didn't want to distinguish good from evil... even he felt inadequate and prayed to God that he would do it right. Doesn't that say something? When the wisest man ever has reservations about doing something he knows is not his place? Eve was convinced by the serpent that this was desireable.

disobedience is missing the mark yes.Yes.

what does the "his eyes were opened" mean to you? to me it means he understood what he was (i.e. naked). Adam became knowledgable of both good and evil, where-as he had only known Good.
Spiritual death is mentioned no where in the bible. It has been inferred but is not in any scripture anywhere in any direct way. Why, with all the authors and all the spiritual men led by God to write, would this not be mentioned in an outright way?You are both right and wrong.
No spiritual death is not written in scripture.
Sha'ul writes; 1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

If not spiritually dead, why do we need a life-giving spirit?

[ElsanRandiMom]

Eve was convinced by the serpent that this was desireable.
Yes.
Adam became knowledgable of both good and evil, where-as he had only known Good.
You are both right and wrong.
No spiritual death is not written in scripture.
Sha'ul writes; 1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

If not spiritually dead, why do we need a life-giving spirit?
because the tree led to death (seperation from God) and thus life-giving is essential from Christ.

if you look at the text it was ALWAYS man who pulled away from God.... not the other way around. That's the death as I see it.

[A_Pioneer]

because the tree led to death (seperation from God) and thus life-giving is essential from Christ.

if you look at the text it was ALWAYS man who pulled away from God.... not the other way around. That's the death as I see it.
Was the subject changed, as I was on another thread?

[ElsanRandiMom]

Was the subject changed, as I was on another thread?
no. I was just answering your life giving spirit thing.

[A_Pioneer]

because the tree led to death (seperation from God) and thus life-giving is essential from Christ. ????

Were they afraid of dying? Unbelief is displayed by Eve!
No faith in the 'word of God', had she/they believed they would be struck dead they would have never sacrificed their lives to one fruit.

If the tree was named the tree of death. Yeah, but it was the 'tree of knowledge!'

if you look at the text it was ALWAYS man who pulled away from God.... not the other way around. That's the death as I see it.??????
Change of subject.

[ElsanRandiMom]

????

Were they afraid of dying? Unbelief is displayed by Eve!
No faith in the 'word of God', had she/they believed they would be struck dead they would have never sacrificed their lives to one fruit.

If the tree was named the tree of death. Yeah, but it was the 'tree of knowledge!'
??????
Change of subject.
I didn't say that the tree led to physical death. I don't believe it led to spiritual death as is defined by most today. I believe it led to seperation of God by our knowledge. (hence the man pulled away thing). God followed us from the garden and tries over and over to connect to us... we are the ones who do not accept the connection.

[visionary]

Are you saying the line of communication has been severed? So it is the line that is dead.

[A_Pioneer]

I didn't say that the tree led to physical death. I don't believe it led to spiritual death as is defined by most today. I believe it led to seperation of God by our knowledge. (hence the man pulled away thing). God followed us from the garden and tries over and over to connect to us... we are the ones who do not accept the connection.
the further I go the more confusion I get!

School Teacher asks kids to draw a picture of their favorite story; What story are you conveying Johnny? She asked, holding up Johnny's picture of an old man with a long white beard driving a bright red Cadillac with two young people riding in the back seat.

Oh, that is God driving Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. says Johnny.

[ElsanRandiMom]

the further I go the more confusion I get!

School Teacher asks kids to draw a picture of their favorite story; What story are you conveying Johnny? She asked, holding up Johnny's picture of an old man with a long white beard driving a bright red Cadillac with two young people riding in the back seat.

Oh, that is God driving Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. says Johnny.
not having the same perspective is not an excuse to be mocking

[A_Pioneer]

not having the same perspective is not an excuse to be mocking
Now how do you get mocking from that?

Did Johnny have my perspective?

It was his, not mine or yours.

I believe the simple meaning of scripture, I keep on studying to see a deeper meaning and understanding.
The simple meaning of God driving Adam and his wife from the garden is to keep him from the tree of life and there-by be eternal and never dying.
22 ¶ Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing 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"
That would have thwarted God's promise that to partake of the fruit, Adam would surely die.
So the tree of life still exists and those saved from the second death will find their way to that tree.
Eternal life.

I was not mocking you!

I thought one had to get old like me to have 'thin skin.'

[ElsanRandiMom]

While I see where your ideation comes from, I don't believe the text is any more in your favor because of it. One can be seen as an act of mercy, the other vengance. God followed them from the garden... so I see it as mercy.

[A_Pioneer]

While I see where your ideation comes from, I don't believe the text is any more in your favor because of it. One can be seen as an act of mercy, the other vengance. God followed them from the garden... so I see it as mercy.
I am a Secret Agent, now that you know, I'll have to kill you! LOL

The commetary from the Chumash is very good.
On verse 21 And he clothed them. Not only did G-d Himself make them comfortable garments. He Himself clothed them to show he still loved them, despite their sin.(Rav Bachya)
The Comment on verses 22-24 is too long for a hunt and peck writer to type out in full. Find access to a Chumash/Stones and read it yourself. It is good.

[ElsanRandiMom]

I am a Secret Agent, now that you know, I'll have to kill you! LOL

The commetary from the Chumash is very good.
On verse 21 And he clothed them. Not only did G-d Himself make them comfortable garments. He Himself clothed them to show he still loved them, despite their sin.(Rav Bachya)
The Comment on verses 22-24 is too long for a hunt and peck writer to type out in full. Find access to a Chumash/Stones and read it yourself. It is good.
what is the Chumash?

[A_Pioneer]

what is the Chumash?
Jewish Torah and the Rabbi's commentary on it.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Jewish Torah and the Rabbi's commentary on it.
is that part of that hal... something h with a c in it... making law or interpreting law to follow by rabbis

[A_Pioneer]

is that part of that hal... something h with a c in it... making law or interpreting law to follow by rabbis
No it is not halacha/how to walk in torah.
It is Torah and the Rabbi's commentary on it.

Surely you have heard of the Christians commentary on the bible. i. e. Full Mathew Henry Commentary. Or myriads of others.

Learned men commenting on the text of the bible.

I know what Christians say about the bible and I've found some faults in their commentary. i.e. All their holidays and worship day, need to know what the Rabbi's 'Learned men commenting on Torah'. said.
So I can draw a conclussion based on the facts as I see them
So I have a Stones Chumash and have come to see the NT in a whole new light.

[Lulav]

they didn't want to leave paradise, no... but it again, didn't have to be a punishment, but a natural consequence of action. if you touch fire you get burned. they touched the tree and therefore had to leave the garden so as not to be stuck that way forever. If you want to look at it as a consequence but what exactly is a consequence, a blessing or curse? ;)

I didn't say that the tree led to physical death. I don't believe it led to spiritual death as is defined by most today. I believe it led to seperation of God by our knowledge. (hence the man pulled away thing). God followed us from the garden and tries over and over to connect to us... we are the ones who do not accept the connection. Hmm , brings to mind :For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

think about what that means, why do we have tears?

the further I go the more confusion I get!

School Teacher asks kids to draw a picture of their favorite story; What story are you conveying Johnny? She asked, holding up Johnny's picture of an old man with a long white beard driving a bright red Cadillac with two young people riding in the back seat.

Oh, that is God driving Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. says Johnny.:D

is that part of that hal... something h with a c in it... making law or interpreting law to follow by rabbis

Chumash (http://www.amazon.com/Chumash-Stone-Artscroll-Nosson-Scherman/dp/0899060145)

There, you can look inside and see what he's talking about. :)

[ElsanRandiMom]

No it is not halacha/how to walk in torah.
It is Torah and the Rabbi's commentary on it.

Surely you have heard of the Christians commentary on the bible. i. e. Full Mathew Henry Commentary. Or myriads of others.

Learned men commenting on the text of the bible.

I know what Christians say about the bible and I've found some faults in their commentary. i.e. All their holidays and worship day, need to know what the Rabbi's 'Learned men commenting on Torah'. said.
So I can draw a conclussion based on the facts as I see them
So I have a Stones Chumash and have come to see the NT in a whole new light.
sure... i just assumed it would hold more weight than most christian interpretations. i take those with a grain of salt unless the Spirit speaks to me that it is truth.

[ElsanRandiMom]

If you want to look at it as a consequence but what exactly is a consequence, a blessing or curse? ;)

Hmm , brings to mind :For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

think about what that means, why do we have tears?

:D



Chumash (http://www.amazon.com/Chumash-Stone-Artscroll-Nosson-Scherman/dp/0899060145)

There, you can look inside and see what he's talking about. :)
okay... why the tears

btw... you poor thing. you've been dealing with me all day. i appreciate it though i realize at times i am trying in temperment.

[Lulav]

No, no problem, sorry I didn't see this reply until now. Um, I need to catch that train of thought I was on before, hmm, tears. ........................

The full connection is not clear , I will have to get back to you on this, sorry. It had something to do with the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Which means we can see this and experience it, the evil, and know it form the good, but that evil causes pain and death and someday, as in that scripture, that memory, that knowledge will be gone, wiped away with our tears.

If I remember more I will post it. :)

[kivi]

sure... i just assumed it would hold more weight than most christian interpretations. i take those with a grain of salt unless the Spirit speaks to me that it is truth.
Its important that the context of that Friday/Eruv Shabbas be brought into the discussion. That morning G-d had created all of the living creatures of the earth, each with its helpmate. In the early afternoon, He created Man/Adom with his helpmate, the 'snake'. At Man's request, G-d split Adom into male and female, so that the 'snake' was un-employed. G-d has Adom name all of the animals. Adom and Chava have sex and Chava bares two sons. Adom and Chava prepare for the Shabbas. G-d tells Adom not to eat of the fruit of the Tree because it will be the desert for Shabbas dinner [Jewish days start at sundown]. That Shabbas dinner would have been the start of Olam Habah, the World to Come, in which Mankind would have gone from spiritual mountain peak to spiritual mountain peak. That spiritual condition is what Moshiach will return us to. Adom tells Chava not to touch the tree. The 'snake' shows Chava that the Tree is safe to touch, proving that Adom's warning was un-true, so she both touches and eats. Adom eats. Both of them are aware that they have lost the spiritual protection of G-d's Mitzvahs and hide. G-d notices. The next morning He goes looking.

The reason for this noting of the day-book for Chava and Adom is to remind us that the fruit of the Tree was not a poison, but the due for Mankind, and so intended by G-d. The problem was who was in charge, G-d or Adom. Adom thought he was, he changed G-d's command when transmitting it to Chava so as to 'set' Chava up. Adom thought he knew better than G-d. Often what we do is a good idea, just not for that time or place.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Its important that the context of that Friday/Eruv Shabbas be brought into the discussion. That morning G-d had created all of the living creatures of the earth, each with its helpmate. In the early afternoon, He created Man/Adom with his helpmate, the 'snake'. At Man's request, G-d split Adom into male and female, so that the 'snake' was un-employed. G-d has Adom name all of the animals. Adom and Chava have sex and Chava bares two sons. Adom and Chava prepare for the Shabbas. G-d tells Adom not to eat of the fruit of the Tree because it will be the desert for Shabbas dinner [Jewish days start at sundown]. That Shabbas dinner would have been the start of Olam Habah, the World to Come, in which Mankind would have gone from spiritual mountain peak to spiritual mountain peak. That spiritual condition is what Moshiach will return us to. Adom tells Chava not to touch the tree. The 'snake' shows Chava that the Tree is safe to touch, proving that Adom's warning was un-true, so she both touches and eats. Adom eats. Both of them are aware that they have lost the spiritual protection of G-d's Mitzvahs and hide. G-d notices. The next morning He goes looking.

The reason for this noting of the day-book for Chava and Adom is to remind us that the fruit of the Tree was not a poison, but the due for Mankind, and so intended by G-d. The problem was who was in charge, G-d or Adom. Adom thought he was, he changed G-d's command when transmitting it to Chava so as to 'set' Chava up. Adom thought he knew better than G-d. Often what we do is a good idea, just not for that time or place.
I just wonder where this story comes in because it is not evident in scripture... how do you get all this information from genesis? or is it kind of a traditional story passed along?

[kivi]

I just wonder where this story comes in because it is not evident in scripture... how do you get all this information from genesis? or is it kind of a traditional story passed along?
In Judaism, when G-d gave the Written Torah [the 5 Books of Moses, also called the Chumash], He also gave oral instructions to more fully explain what He was driving at. For example, in the written Torah, He tells Jewish males to wear fringes at the corners of any 4 cornered garment [like a poncho] and in the Oral Torah He tells how the fringes are to be made. In the Written Torah He tells the Jews not to eat blood and in the Oral Torah He tells us how to remove that blood. With every one of the 613 mitzvahs found in the Written Torah, there are further instructions in the Oral Torah. Before the printing press, oral learning and memorization was the preferred manner of review, retention and transmission of knowledge. We are warned in the Written Torah not to publish the Oral Torah. This commandment was over-riden when the Roman occupiers after the 2nd Jewish War [which we lost] especially targeted the 'memorizers' for death to destroy the Torah and Jewish unity. The name for the published Oral Torah is the Talmud [400-600 CE]. Included in the Talmud is a great deal of detailed Jewish and world history.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no mention of anything dying at this time and there is another way to have skins to clothe them, this is the shed skin of the serpent.

They shed the glory of God for skin of their tempter.

First recorded death was the slaying of Abel.

$.02.
oh uck, shed skin???
e.w.bullinger showed that if you look at the Hebrew instead of the english mistranslation
then you know already it was not a 'snake' as in not a physical animal that tempted Eve.
It was an angel of light, as the word was translated everywhere else it was used
and it never meant and was never anywhere translated 'snake' in any place !!!! (I don't know if he/bullinger showed why the enemy corrpted this or not, or when it was done; simply that it was an egregious and obvious mistranslation)

[A_Pioneer]

oh uck, shed skin???
e.w.bullinger showed that if you look at the Hebrew instead of the english mistranslation
then you know already it was not a 'snake' as in not a physical animal that tempted Eve.
It was an angel of light, as the word was translated everywhere else it was used
and it never meant and was never anywhere translated 'snake' in any place !!!! (I don't know if he/bullinger showed why the enemy corrpted this or not, or when it was done; simply that it was an egregious and obvious mistranslation)
Bullinger was a commentator just like the rest of them.

I read the Chusmash and I quote,"The concensus of the commentators is that the serpent of the narrative was literall a serpent. they differ reguarding what evil force it represented: -------------. According to the Midrash , before this cunning beast was cursed , it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication.

There is not a mention of any animal dying at this point in scripture. So where did the skin come from? A leftover from creation or a shed skin?

I think it apropo for God to make Adam and his wife clothes of the shed skin of the serpent, after all he did (Adam) shed his heavenly perfection(Image of God). It is quite apropriate for them to bear sinful skin as a reminder of their fall from grace. But again if not satans shed skin? Where did it come from?

[Lulav]

Its important that the context of that Friday/Eruv Shabbas be brought into the discussion. That morning G-d had created all of the living creatures of the earth, each with its helpmate. In the early afternoon, He created Man/Adom with his helpmate, the 'snake'. At Man's request, G-d split Adom into male and female, so that the 'snake' was un-employed. G-d has Adom name all of the animals. Adom and Chava have sex and Chava bares two sons. Adom and Chava prepare for the Shabbas. G-d tells Adom not to eat of the fruit of the Tree because it will be the desert for Shabbas dinner [Jewish days start at sundown]. That Shabbas dinner would have been the start of Olam Habah, the World to Come, in which Mankind would have gone from spiritual mountain peak to spiritual mountain peak. That spiritual condition is what Moshiach will return us to. Adom tells Chava not to touch the tree. The 'snake' shows Chava that the Tree is safe to touch, proving that Adom's warning was un-true, so she both touches and eats. Adom eats. Both of them are aware that they have lost the spiritual protection of G-d's Mitzvahs and hide. G-d notices. The next morning He goes looking.

The reason for this noting of the day-book for Chava and Adom is to remind us that the fruit of the Tree was not a poison, but the due for Mankind, and so intended by G-d. The problem was who was in charge, G-d or Adom. Adom thought he was, he changed G-d's command when transmitting it to Chava so as to 'set' Chava up. Adom thought he knew better than G-d. Often what we do is a good idea, just not for that time or place.
Besides from a certain Rabbi's thinking this was how it went what else do we have to back up the thinking that HaShem did nothing for the first 12 hours of the 6th day? Where is it written that mankinds helpmate was the snake?:eek: This is news to me and I am fairly well read. You are making a lot of implications and assumptions here. Let me name a few and I would like to see you cite where this is from and where in the Torah of Moshe it can be derived from.

1. HaShem waited 12 hours on the 6th day before creating the beasts
2 Then he made Adam and the serpent his helpmate ( must be different kind of beast)
3 Adam doesn't like beast/snake/serpent and asks for another
4 HaShem complies and splits him in two
5. The snake now has no job and becomes a degenerate, bum
6 Adam names all the animals then has sex with Chava ( all before the fall) and she gestates for what, a couple of hours?
7. She gives birth just in time to make ready for Shabbat
8. G-d tells Adom not to eat of the fruit of the Tree because it will be the desert for Shabbas dinner ( this sounds very much like the middle piece of Matzah that you don't know where the tradition came from or why it's hidden, but it must be dessert!)
9. Adom tells Chava not to touch the tree. The 'snake' shows Chava that the Tree is safe to touch, proving that Adom's warning was un-true, so she both touches and eats. Why she listens to her predecessor is beyond me, I don't know of a woman that would listen to anything the Ex-wife would tell her. ;)
10. She eats it, he eats it, then they realize the state they are in, agreed here. G-d notices? I think he was watching all along, and doesn't need to 'look' for them.

Nope, the tree was not a 'poison' but would poison our position with the Holy one.

I can agreed with all this except a 'set-up'

The problem was who was in charge, G-d or Adom. Adom thought he was, he changed G-d's command when transmitting it to Chava so as to 'set' Chava up. Adom thought he knew better than G-d. Often what we do is a good idea, just not for that time or place.He just did the same thing men still do today, he put a fence around the law, causing her to stumble when if he would have told it to her the way HaShem told him, the 'snake' wouldn't have had any wiggle room to entice her with.

[stone]

in the bible...

do you believe it was ordered by God, or done from a heartfelt thanks without directive from God?

why?

I believe that it was Adam that performed the 1st sacrifices to god. It would have been under the request to do so by god.

[Lulav]

We must remember that sacrifices and offerings are two different things.

[stone]

We must remember that sacrifices and offerings are two different things.
why?

[kivi]

what is the Chumash?
The Chumash is the 5 Books of Moses. It is not more or less. It is the written dictation that Moses took directly from G-d when G-d ordered Moses to write it down. it forms the 1st part of the Tanach which is the the Chamash + the prophets + the histories + the songs.

[kivi]

We must remember that sacrifices and offerings are two different things.
Could you please explain that a little more?

[kivi]

Lulav says: "Besides from a certain Rabbi's thinking"

kivi says: When our Rabbis discuss Judaism, in books or orally, they indicate when their source is themselves and the logic they used to come up with the idea and the Torah verse they used to start their train of thought. However, when they quote in the name of an 'earlier' Rabbi, they are saying that they are reporting in the Tradition that goes back all the way to Moses and Mt Sinai and the Giving of the Torah.

For example. On Shabbas you can't start a fire. We have been following that one for 3300 years. However, we didn't have cars back on Moses' time. So, what do you do with cars? Can you use them? Can't you use them? So, you start with the verse about not working on Shabbas, then you go to the verse that talks about starting a fire. Then you go to an engineer that knows about cars and you ask: Is there any fire involved with a car? And if there is, how? And the engineer tells you about the internal combustion engine and the pistons and the spark plugs and you learn that a car goes on the burning of gasoline, so, yes, there is starting a fire' and, no, you can't use a car on Shabbas. Now, it that 'a certain Rabbi's thinking' or the 'learning out' of the already existing Law about how to apply it to the current situation? Especially since the decision does not count/become binding until there is a world wide consensus within the Orthodox Community on any such decision. Heck, it took 30 years to finally decide on whether the kosher status of plastic. '

Lulav says: " his was how it went what else do we have to back up the thinking that HaShem did nothing for the first 12 hours of the 6th day?"

kivi says: I am not quite sure what you mean by that. The 1st part of every Jewish day is from sundown to sunrise. Is that the 12 hours you refer to? I don't have any information on what G-d did at night on any of the 'days of creation'. Especially since in the 1st 'day' there was no sun or moon. I really don't know how to address the rest of your comments. They are good sarcasm, but beyond that, I really don't have much to say. As for the comment on 'fences': I can imagine that what Adom did with 'don't touch the tree' was a 'fence'. The problem was he did not tell Chava that it was a 'fence', he told her that 'touching' was as bad as 'eating'. Setting up a fence at the edge of a cliff is always a good idea. It keeps all away and does not destroy the view. But not knowing the difference 'sets' one up to mistake the 'fence' for the real danger. By keeping Chava in ignorance, Adom broke the 1st rule of treating others as he would like to be treated. Nobody in Judaism is rewarding Adom for his behavior. It was wrong. While many put the blame on Chava for the problem in the Garden, Judaism clearly puts the blame in Adom's court."

[Lulav]

If you won't answer my question then I see no purpose in continuing. :wave:

Shalom!

Where is it written that mankinds helpmate was the snake?

[ozell]

in the bible...

do you believe it was ordered by God, or done from a heartfelt thanks without directive from God?

why?

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Where did the Lord get the coats of skin? Animals

why not used cotton or any other non animal product?

why did Jesus use Animal?

man sinned.

a way was needed to kinda clean this man up until Jesus came to die for the sins of man.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin.

[kivi]

Ozell says: "Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Where did the Lord get the coats of skin? Animals

why not used cotton or any other non animal product?

why did Jesus use Animal?

man sinned.

a way was needed to kinda clean this man up until Jesus came to die for the sins of man.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin."

I tried to find that in the text of Genesis 3 and I can't. I see that G-d gave Adom and Chava garments of skin for clothing, but I don't see anywhere that He killed or made a offering of some animals to get those skins. He had just finished creating the entire Universe. Doesn't it make just as much sense, if not more, that He created the skins out of nothing rather than killed some animal? I think it is dangerous to make a claim for something that has no tradition/evidence to support it.

[ElsanRandiMom]

I don't see it that way, but I see how someone would. :)

Anyway, God didn't sacrifice the animal to His own glory, and that's really what I was speaking of.

[A_Pioneer]

Ozell says: "Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Where did the Lord get the coats of skin? Animals

why not used cotton or any other non animal product?

why did Jesus use Animal?

man sinned.

a way was needed to kinda clean this man up until Jesus came to die for the sins of man.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin."

I tried to find that in the text of Genesis 3 and I can't. I see that G-d gave Adom and Chava garments of skin for clothing, but I don't see anywhere that He killed or made a offering of some animals to get those skins. He had just finished creating the entire Universe. Doesn't it make just as much sense, if not more, that He created the skins out of nothing rather than killed some animal? I think it is dangerous to make a claim for something that has no tradition/evidence to support it.

Amen! The ADDER has no problem with it!
The serpent had just added to the 'word' when he spoke to Chavah!
It makes no difference if we add to the scripture. Does it?
Seems like I read somewhere in scripture that God took issue with addition and subtraction. But, what the hey! We are forgiven of our past, present and future sins. Aren't we?
That was the Pablum I was fed as a Christian baby.
I wonder? Does Heb. 10:26 really say that if we sin deliberatly, there is no longer a sacrifice for sin? Oh, well what do those Jews know anyway?
OSAS. Go ahead and throw the dice, they always come up 7 or 11! Don't they?
It's not a fearful thing to fall into the hands of Jesus! (New God)
Now, I'm confused again. Is this Christian error/Era? Why did I become Messianic?
???-----?????-----?

[ElsanRandiMom]

I'm confused as to parts of your statement... other parts I get (I think)

[ozell]

Ozell says: "Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Where did the Lord get the coats of skin? Animals

why not used cotton or any other non animal product?

why did Jesus use Animal?

man sinned.

a way was needed to kinda clean this man up until Jesus came to die for the sins of man.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin."

I tried to find that in the text of Genesis 3 and I can't. I see that G-d gave Adom and Chava garments of skin for clothing, but I don't see anywhere that He killed or made a offering of some animals to get those skins. He had just finished creating the entire Universe. Doesn't it make just as much sense, if not more, that He created the skins out of nothing rather than killed some animal? I think it is dangerous to make a claim for something that has no tradition/evidence to support it.


Its not dangereous when understanding the entire bible is used.

God taught man how to make clothing from animals, so why would'nt he kill animals to make clothing for man.

God taught man everthing he needed to know to survive including making clothes.

now to understanding.

Adam and Eve sinned.

what is the wages of sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

since Adam and Eve sinned, what died? we know Adam and Eve didn't die and they are the only people on earth, and Jesus had come. what died?

animals.

For the wages of sin is death

[ozell]

Its not dangereous when understanding the entire bible is used.

God taught man how to make clothing from animals, so why would'nt he kill animals to make clothing for man.

God taught man everthing he needed to know to survive including making clothes.

now to understanding.

Adam and Eve sinned.

what is the wages of sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

since Adam and Eve sinned, what died? we know Adam and Eve didn't die and they are the only people on earth, and Jesus had come. what died?

animals.

For the wages of sin is death

what covered Adam and Eve sin?
After they sinned how was the Lord able to be around them?
when the Lord found iniquity in satan, satan was kicked out of heaven from the Lord's presence.

what covered there sins?
what covered the sins of the people before Jesus?
what covered the sins of people after Jesus?

God said
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.

[kivi]

kivi said: “I tried to find that in the text[Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin."] of Genesis 3 and I can't. I see that G-d gave Adom and Chava garments of skin for clothing, but I don't see anywhere that He killed or made a offering of some animals to get those skins. He had just finished creating the entire Universe. Doesn't it make just as much sense, if not more, that He created the skins out of nothing rather than killed some animal? I think it is dangerous to make a claim for something that has no tradition/evidence to support it”.

ozell says: “Its not dangereous when understanding the entire bible is used.

God taught man how to make clothing from animals, so why would'nt he kill animals to make clothing for man.”

Kivi says: “I didn’t say that he didn’t or wouldn't kill the animals, I just said that we have no proof to that effect. And I gave a more than reasonable alternative, that He, who had just created the entire Universe, had created the skins out of nothing. Neither your claim nor my counter is more or less historically valid. Neither have any proof or evidence or tradition. That being the case, why would you continue to insist that your interpretation is more valid than mine? Why not hold both of them equally valid until more evidence is available? This is important because if both are equally valid, then both you and I would have to ‘hold’ until more evidence was forthcoming our conclusions, yours being that Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin and mine that it is not.

Do you understand the point I am making? Until that historic fact is settled it is impossible to move on to “now to understanding” because we do not know what we are ‘understanding’. What do you think????"


ozell says: "God taught man everthing he needed to know to survive including making clothes.

now to understanding."

kivi says: "You can't jump to understanding until you are sure of your facts. And you can't be sure."

ozell: "Adam and Eve sinned.

what is the wages of sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

since Adam and Eve sinned, what died? we know Adam and Eve didn't die and they are the only people on earth, and Jesus had come. what died?

animals."

kivi says: Again, we have no evidence that anything died. That is mere speculation."


ozell says: "For the wages of sin is death'

kivi says: And the animals had not sinned, had they?"

[ozell]

Kivi says: “I didn’t say that he didn’t or wouldn't kill the animals, I just said that we have no proof to that effect. And I gave a more than reasonable alternative, that He, who had just created the entire Universe, had created the skins out of nothing. Neither your claim nor my counter is more or less historically valid. Neither have any proof or evidence or tradition. That being the case, why would you continue to insist that your interpretation is more valid than mine? Why not hold both of them equally valid until more evidence is available? This is important because if both are equally valid, then both you and I would have to ‘hold’ until more evidence was forthcoming our conclusions, yours being that Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin and mine that it is not.

Do you understand the point I am making? Until that historic fact is settled it is impossible to move on to “now to understanding” because we do not know what we are ‘understanding’. What do you think????"



Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

understanding God's word lets me know that the skins that God used to make clothing had to come from animals. Today we used the skins of animals to make clothing.

because Adam and Eve sinned something had to die.

because

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

the Lord told Adam and Eve that if they sinned they would die.

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.

without the shedding of blood sin can't be removed

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

if Adam and Eve had not sinned there would be no need of shedding of blood or killing animals for coats of skin becuae it would be no death.




ozell says: "God taught man everthing he needed to know to survive including making clothes.

now to understanding."

kivi says: "You can't jump to understanding until you are sure of your facts. And you can't be sure."


Jesus said

Prov 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Eph 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

the facts are in the bible.

ozell: "Adam and Eve sinned.

what is the wages of sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

since Adam and Eve sinned, what died? we know Adam and Eve didn't die and they are the only people on earth, and Jesus had come. what died?

animals."

kivi says: Again, we have no evidence that anything died. That is mere speculation."

I know that the bible says

Prov 27:26 The lambs are for thy clothing, and the goats are the price of the field.

Mt 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

where did the leather girdle come from?

also Adam and Eve sinned how is the Lord able to continue dealing with them since he is perfect and they were tainted?
.
what brought Adam and Eve back to the Lord?

what blood was shed for the remission of there sin? before Jesus came in the flesh of course.

what did the skins come from that the Lord made for there clothing?

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

what happened in the past happens today.

ozell says: "For the wages of sin is death'

kivi says: And the animals had not sinned, had they?"


No

yet the Lord never gave his word to animals.


Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

no! the animal don't sin, but they die because of sin.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

yet before Jesus came or a Israelite born, man made animal sacrifice for sin.

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen 22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

animal sacrifice is the school master until the Lord came.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

[Lulav]

In Judaism, when G-d gave the Written Torah [the 5 Books of Moses, also called the Chumash], He also gave oral instructions to more fully explain what He was driving at. For example, in the written Torah, He tells Jewish males to wear fringes at the corners of any 4 cornered garment [like a poncho] and in the Oral Torah He tells how the fringes are to be made. In the Written Torah He tells the Jews not to eat blood and in the Oral Torah He tells us how to remove that blood. With every one of the 613 mitzvahs found in the Written Torah, there are further instructions in the Oral Torah. Before the printing press, oral learning and memorization was the preferred manner of review, retention and transmission of knowledge. We are warned in the Written Torah not to publish the Oral Torah. This commandment was over-riden when the Roman occupiers after the 2nd Jewish War [which we lost] especially targeted the 'memorizers' for death to destroy the Torah and Jewish unity. The name for the published Oral Torah is the Talmud [400-600 CE]. Included in the Talmud is a great deal of detailed Jewish and world history.Oh good, we are talking written torah.:clap: Kivi, please cite me book and chapter and verse where it says HaShem commanded only males to wear tzitziot?
Also isn't it specified in written Torah how to schochet a sacrifice? At least generally?

If there is a warning not to write down the oral word of G-d then why was it over-ridden and who has the authority to override what HaShem says? Where is that written in the word He said to write down, the Torah?

[Lulav]

Bullinger was a commentator just like the rest of them.

I read the Chusmash and I quote,"The concensus of the commentators is that the serpent of the narrative was literall a serpent. they differ reguarding what evil force it represented: -------------. According to the Midrash , before this cunning beast was cursed , it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication.

There is not a mention of any animal dying at this point in scripture. So where did the skin come from? A leftover from creation or a shed skin?

I think it apropo for God to make Adam and his wife clothes of the shed skin of the serpent, after all he did (Adam) shed his heavenly perfection(Image of God). It is quite apropriate for them to bear sinful skin as a reminder of their fall from grace. But again if not satans shed skin? Where did it come from?

I agree that it was literally a serpent. We see that imagery in the wilderness when the people complained HaShem sent serpents amoung them and they bite them and they started to die. Moshe was instructed to make a serpent on a pole and to 'lift it up' , then Israel was instructed to 'look upon this serpent on the pole' and they would live.

Just by looking up and believing that they would live, healed them and they didn't die.

This same serpent on a pole represented Messiah to come and what he would do to save all Israel, at least those who would look up and believe.

Now as far as the serpent shed skin covering Adam and Chavak, that is a bit of a stretch for me. I think mortal flesh would be a better discription. The spirit that was Adam and Chavak, their glorious bodies were defiled and needed a kaparah, a covering. No shed blood nor shed skin is mentioned in the garden. If we are going to surmise that no blood was shed we then must also apply that to the serpents skin as well.

[kivi]

Kivi says: “I didn’t say that he didn’t or wouldn't kill the animals, I just said that we have no proof to that effect. And I gave a more than reasonable alternative, that He, who had just created the entire Universe, had created the skins out of nothing. Neither your claim nor my counter is more or less historically valid. Neither have any proof or evidence or tradition. That being the case, why would you continue to insist that your interpretation is more valid than mine? Why not hold both of them equally valid until more evidence is available? This is important because if both are equally valid, then both you and I would have to ‘hold’ until more evidence was forthcoming our conclusions, yours being that Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin and mine that it is not.

Do you understand the point I am making? Until that historic fact is settled it is impossible to move on to “now to understanding” because we do not know what we are ‘understanding’. What do you think????"

Ozell says: “Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

understanding God's word lets me know that the skins that God used to make clothing had to come from animals. Today we used the skins of animals to make clothing.

because Adam and Eve sinned something had to die.”
Kivi says: “That is just your best guess. You have no verse from that section of the Torah that confirms your claim. Just making the same claim over an over again does not make the claim right. No question about skins, but there is a lot of question about whether the skins were gotten from a killed animal or were created out of nothing. You haven’t proven anything but just given your opinion. When you say you ‘understand’ are you claiming a private revelation that the rest of us do not have?”

ozell says: “because

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

the Lord told Adam and Eve that if they sinned they would die.”

Kivi says: “I am not arguing the Christian religion over ‘wages of sin’; just that you still have no evidence that G-d killed anything to get the skins. Of course, you also have no evidence that G-d made a Korban to get the skins. You may claim that God told Adam and Eve that ‘if they sinned, they would die’ but you have yet to show that He killed anything in replacement for the sins of Adam and Eve. In effect, you are still manufacturing your claim.”

ozell says: “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.

without the shedding of blood sin can't be removed

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

if Adam and Eve had not sinned there would be no need of shedding of blood or killing animals for coats of skin becuae it would be no death.”

Kivi says: “YOU still haven’t proven anything about G-d shedding any blood for anything. I see no text about G-D bringing A Korban or Adam and Eve bringing a Korban; I see no evidence in the text that G-d killed anything. All I see in this post your claims. No good enough.”
ozell says: "God taught man everthing he needed to know to survive including making clothes.

now to understanding."

kivi says: "You can't jump to understanding until you are sure of your facts. And you can't be sure."


ozell says:
Jesus says
“Prov 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Eph 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

the facts are in the bible.”
Kivi says: “No argument that the facts are in the Bible, but you haven’t shown them. No verse from Genesis about God bringing a Korban or Adom or Eve bringing a Korban or G-d killing anything. You still have no support for your claims.”
ozell: "Adam and Eve sinned.

what is the wages of sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

since Adam and Eve sinned, what died? we know Adam and Eve didn't die and they are the only people on earth, and Jesus had come. what died?

animals."

kivi says: Again, we have no evidence that anything died. That is mere speculation."


ozell says: “I know that the bible says

Prov 27:26 The lambs are for thy clothing, and the goats are the price of the field.

Mt 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.


where did the leather girdle come from?”
kivi says: “I don’t know where the girdle came from. But since by the time of John we are talking about human industry and commerce, then it is logical to assume that a human made it. But we are originally talking about Adom and Chava and G-d. Long before G-d might have taught them about the tanning process. So, again, your quotes have no bearing on our discussion. You are just throwing them around like loose change with not correlation between the subject and the quote. ”

ozell says: “also Adam and Eve sinned how is the Lord able to continue dealing with them since he is perfect and they were tainted?
.
what brought Adam and Eve back to the Lord?”

kivi says: G-d’s mercy. He stretched out His hand of mercy before Adom and Chava were able to ask Him for forgiveness. He gave it to them free of charge. Since they did not know how to come to Him, He came to them. He went looking for them. How did he deal with them even though he is G-d and they are human? Very well and with infinite kindness, compassion, understanding and love.”

ozell says: “what blood was shed for the remission of there sin? before Jesus came in the flesh of course.

what did the skins come from that the Lord made for there clothing?”

Kivi says: “As I said before, He could have created them out of nothing. After all, just the pervious week he had created the entire Universe out of nothing.”

[kivi]

lulav says: "Oh good, we are talking written torah.:clap: Kivi, please cite me book and chapter and verse where it says HaShem commanded only males to wear tzitziot?"

kivi says: "Bamidbar 15:37. '37. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
38. Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them that they shall make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall affix a thread of sky blue [wool] on the fringe of each corner.

39. This shall be fringes for you, and when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the Lord to perform them, and you shall not wander after your hearts and after your eyes after which you are going astray.

40. So that you shall remember and perform all My commandments and you shall be holy to your God.

41. I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your God; I am the Lord, your God.'
1/ Since this is a case of male attire which women are not allowed to wear, it can only apply to males. 2/ Since this has a time requirement to be performed [during day ligh hours] only males are required to perform mitzvahs that have time limits. 3/ When the phrase 'Children of Israel is used in other places, like in the censuses, only males are counted."



lulav says: "Also isn't it specified in written Torah how to schochet a sacrifice? At least generally?"

kivi says: "'Generally' is hardly enough. Having worked in a kosher meat packing factory, I assure you the USA government inspectors don't do 'generally', Neither do the kosher inspectors. The process of killing and koshering and shippiing are a lot more than just what is found in the written text. And that is from necessity. You could never run a kosher meat kill floor and processing plant, large or small or tiny, based on the written instructions. Too much is missing."

lulav says: "If there is a warning not to write down the oral word of G-d then why was it over-ridden and who has the authority to override what HaShem says?"

kivi says: "only under extreme circumstances and for only a temporarily measure. In the particular case of the Talmud it was because the Romans were specifically targeting the memorizers. Also the Jews were going back into total exile and needed a convenient law source that was more movable. One such place is: Devarim 16:18-20:
18. You shall set up judges and law enforcement officials for yourself in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you, for your tribes, and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment.

19. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show favoritism, and you shall not take a bribe, for bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts just words.

20. Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you."



lulav says: "Where is that written in the word He said to write down, the Torah?"

kivi says: He tells Moses to take dictation numerous times, from the Tablets to the Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim." And numerous times he tells Moses that He will show Moses what He is talking about but the 'showing' is never explained or detailed in the written text."

[Lulav]

Kivi says: “I didn’t say that he didn’t or wouldn't kill the animals, I just said that we have no proof to that effect. And I gave a more than reasonable alternative, that He, who had just created the entire Universe, had created the skins out of nothing. Neither your claim nor my counter is more or less historically valid. Neither have any proof or evidence or tradition. That being the case, why would you continue to insist that your interpretation is more valid than mine? Why not hold both of them equally valid until more evidence is available? This is important because if both are equally valid, then both you and I would have to ‘hold’ until more evidence was forthcoming our conclusions, yours being that Genesis 3 is the beginning of the shedding of blood for remission of sin and mine that it is not.Kivi, the only problem I have with that is that the disobedience came after the end of creation. After the sixth day, unless you believe they sinned before the first Shabbat?

Also the word used is asah not bara.

[Talmidah]

.

[Lulav]

lulav says: "Oh good, we are talking written torah.:clap: Kivi, please cite me book and chapter and verse where it says HaShem commanded only males to wear tzitziot?"

kivi says: "Bamidbar 15:37. '37. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
38. Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them that they shall make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall affix a thread of sky blue [wool] on the fringe of each corner.

39. This shall be fringes for you, and when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the Lord to perform them, and you shall not wander after your hearts and after your eyes after which you are going astray.

40. So that you shall remember and perform all My commandments and you shall be holy to your God.

41. I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your God; I am the Lord, your God.'
1/ Since this is a case of male attire which women are not allowed to wear, it can only apply to males. 2/ Since this has a time requirement to be performed [during day ligh hours] only males are required to perform mitzvahs that have time limits. 3/ When the phrase 'Children of Israel is used in other places, like in the censuses, only males are counted."



lulav says: "Also isn't it specified in written Torah how to schochet a sacrifice? At least generally?"

kivi says: "'Generally' is hardly enough. Having worked in a kosher meat packing factory, I assure you the USA government inspectors don't do 'generally', Neither do the kosher inspectors. The process of killing and koshering and shippiing are a lot more than just what is found in the written text. And that is from necessity. You could never run a kosher meat kill floor and processing plant, large or small or tiny, based on the written instructions. Too much is missing."

lulav says: "If there is a warning not to write down the oral word of G-d then why was it over-ridden and who has the authority to override what HaShem says?"

kivi says: "only under extreme circumstances and for only a temporarily measure. In the particular case of the Talmud it was because the Romans were specifically targeting the memorizers. Also the Jews were going back into total exile and needed a convenient law source that was more movable. One such place is: Devarim 16:18-20:
18. You shall set up judges and law enforcement officials for yourself in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you, for your tribes, and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment.

19. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show favoritism, and you shall not take a bribe, for bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts just words.

20. Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you."



lulav says: "Where is that written in the word He said to write down, the Torah?"

kivi says: He tells Moses to take dictation numerous times, from the Tablets to the Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim." And numerous times he tells Moses that He will show Moses what He is talking about but the 'showing' is never explained or detailed in the written text."

So I guess women don't have to worry about going astray? :)

Can you explain to me more about this:

the Romans were specifically targeting the memorizers.

thanks :)

[kivi]

lulav says: "Kivi, the only problem I have with that is that the disobedience came after the end of creation. After the sixth day, unless you believe they sinned before the first Shabbat?"

kivi says: The Jewish Tradition is in agreement that the disobedience, the averiah [missing the mark, creating a spiritual void/lack/hole] occured at the end of the 6th day, at sundown, just before the beginning of the 7th day, Shabbas. In fact, if Adom and Chava had waited just a little until the Shabbas evening kiddish [maybe a few minutes], the 'fruit' would have been the meal/desert of the kiddish. There is disagreement on exactly what the 'fruit' was: some say wheat, some grapes, some pomegrante, some an unspecificed fruit."

lulav says: "Also the word used is asah not bara."

kivi says: "I'm not sure what you mean by that."
__________________

[Lulav]

Hmm, the very day of their creation? That brings to mind this question, how did they have time to do this, and hide? Adam had to name all the animals , didn't he? For some reason I always felt some time went by before this happened, so you think it was the first thing that they 'ate'?

What time is the cool of the day?


By bara or asah ( I can't get hebrew on my pc yet) I meant that the word used that he made them coats of skins is the word of making something out of something that already exists, not something out of nothing. Bara, from what I understand is used when He created on the six days, out of nothing. But asah means to make something out of existing materials, like for the mishkan, this word is used repeatedly.

[visionary]

Can you explain to me more about this:


the Romans were specifically targeting the memorizers.
thanks Me too.... I am curious about this.

[kivi]

lulav says: "So I guess women don't have to worry about going astray? :)"

kivi says: "While all humans have problems and make mistakes, women have a much greater/better/stronger spiritual intuitive understanding then men do. Men, to achieve the same level as women have to do so through learning, logic and reason, a moch more difficult and laborious method. Women are much more rooted in reality then men, must learn responsiblity much sooner and to a greater degree then men and understand how service and giving are the core of any successful life much better then men."

lulav says: "Can you explain to me more about this: [kivi said]: 'the Romans were specifically targeting the memorizers.'

As much as 90%+ of Torah, both Halachah [Law] and Mishnah [context and example], were transmitted from person to person and generation to generation by oral repetition and memorization. To meet this need, Torah scholars were specifially trained in memorization with the best memeorizers considered of the extremely important functionaries. For example, in the 'Ethics of the Fathers', Ch 2, Mishnah 11, R' Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is specifially praised as a 'cemented cistern' in recognition of his superior memorizaton skills. The Romans figured this out and started targeting the Rabbis, especially the memorizers. This drove the Sanhadrin to finally and against its most earnest desires to finally publish the Oral Torah in an act of desparation and recognition that the spiritual level of B'nai Israel had again dropped to a lower level. For more on the central role memorization played in pre-printing press learning and information transfer [both Jew and gentile], see Daniel Boorstin's [Head of the Library of Congress] "The Explorers" in the chapter about memorization."

[kivi]

lulav says: "Hmm, the very day of their creation? That brings to mind this question, how did they have time to do this, and hide? Adam had to name all the animals , didn't he? For some reason I always felt some time went by before this happened, so you think it was the first thing that they 'ate'?"

kivi says: "Yes, it was a very busy schedule. G-d spent the morning of the 6th day creating the animals, etc. He spent the afternoon of the 6th day creating Adom/Chava and the 'snake', having Adom/Chava spiritually name all of the animals as an act of spiritual growth and responsibility, and 'spliting' Adom and Chava. Adom and Chava were married and Chava got pregnent and had Abel and Cain [with their twin sisters]. The family prepared for Shabbas, the 7th day, which would have start that sundown, G-d told Adom about the 'fruit', Adom messed up the message to Chava, the 'snake' took advantage of the situation and Chava and then Adom eat the 'fruit'. After sundown, the start of Shabbas, the 7th day, G-d went looking for Adom and Chava."

lulav says: "What time is the cool of the day?"

kivi says: The 'cool of the day' is after sundown, in late evening. So, the term would refer to the beginning of the Hebrew day, in this case, Shabbas, which is after sundown."


lulav says: "By bara or asah ( I can't get hebrew on my pc yet) I meant that the word used that he made them coats of skins is the word of making something out of something that already exists, not something out of nothing. Bara, from what I understand is used when He created on the six days, out of nothing. But asah means to make something out of existing materials, like for the mishkan, this word is used repeatedly."

kivi says: "There seems to be a reluctance in Torah Judaism to assume that G-d would need to do a miracle to achieve His Will. After all, He created the Universe and the rules it runs by, why would He have to then over rule His own rules? By miracle, it is meant that G-d would suspend or over-ride the rules of the Universe, the 'natural order/laws' He created. So, when the big miracles are discussed, like The Yom Suf [splitting the sea] or causing the sun to stand still or the 10 Plagues, etc it is said that G-d created all of these 'miracles' at the very end of the 6th day. In that way they are as much apart of the 'natural order/laws' of the Universe as gravity. Therefore, they are part of the woof and weave of the Universe like gravity rather than 'seperate' or 'above'. So, in this case, the 'skins' would have been created in the same way. One of the great distinction between G-d and man is that G-d always creates out of nothing while man can only create out of something that already exists. The garment refered to has a long and important history in the order of the World. It gave its owner very special spiritual powers that allowed the owner great control in the physical world. It was owned by Nimrod and gave him the powers he needed to be King [Tower of Bable, etc] and it was owned by Esav and gave him the power to be the great hunter he was."

[ElsanRandiMom]

Hmm, the very day of their creation? That brings to mind this question, how did they have time to do this, and hide? Adam had to name all the animals , didn't he? For some reason I always felt some time went by before this happened, so you think it was the first thing that they 'ate'?

What time is the cool of the day?


By bara or asah ( I can't get hebrew on my pc yet) I meant that the word used that he made them coats of skins is the word of making something out of something that already exists, not something out of nothing. Bara, from what I understand is used when He created on the six days, out of nothing. But asah means to make something out of existing materials, like for the mishkan, this word is used repeatedly.
I was under the impression "the cool of the day" type ideation was a (not meant in a bad way but saying it as it was presented to me by a friend) type of "Jewism" like a saying of a sort that is a Jewish idea of that place where we meet with God (not a specific time of day)

I was also under the impression that sin occured before the tree (being as she basically lied about what she could and could not do to the serpent, but that's a whole nother thread), that all the tree provided was knowledge of what is and is not sin (good/evil)

[visionary]

What time is the cool of the day?

I picture the time when the sun is about to set, and the heat of the day is starting to disapate.

[kivi]

What time is the cool of the day?

I picture the time when the sun is about to set, and the heat of the day is starting to disapate.

The Hebrew means the 'cool of the day' is right after sundown, in late evening. So, the term would refer to the beginning of the Hebrew day, in the case of the Gan Eden story in Genesis, Shabbas, which is after sundown."

[ozell]

What time is the cool of the day?

I picture the time when the sun is about to set, and the heat of the day is starting to disapate.

or it can be just before the sun come up or before the sun is at its highest in the sky.

before the sun rise this is the coolest of the day especially in the summer.

when the sun is about to set the day and evening temperture can still be warm or hot.

[visionary]

ok.... night first then day in a the godly hours of a day.

my understanding is....
The cool of the night would be just at dawn as the night is getting over and turning into day. The cool of the day is at sunset

[ozell]

ok.... night first then day in a the godly hours of a day.

my understanding is....
The cool of the night would be just at dawn as the night is getting over and turning into day. The cool of the day is at sunset

yes, I see where you are going. but on a warm spring or summer day is it cool at sunset or at sunrise, which is coolest?

at sunset the temperture can still be hot or warm. The Lord said cool for a reason.

then he said day.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

day is when there is light, night is when it is dark

a example I will use is this

I understand as the sun rises of has risen very early. this is the time when I do my walking, it is in the early morning when it is the coolest on a summer or warm spring day.

Just something to consider

[ElsanRandiMom]

but is that a literal translation? or does it take into account usage and intent (just asking - not knowing for sure myself) like if I said "hay, that's cool" does that mean in 1000 years they will think I said "grain, that is cold"

[ozell]

but is that a literal translation? or does it take into account usage and intent (just asking - not knowing for sure myself) like if I said "hay, that's cool" does that mean in 1000 years they will think I said "grain, that is cold"


the reason I take it literal is because the Lord was teaching Adam
the Lord was here on this earth literally walking with Adam.
a great example is when Abraham saw Melchizadek. Who was the High Priest of God, who also is Jesus.

Abraham met God.

The Lord was on this earth with Israel in a cloud by day and fire by night.

Gen 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.

why is the temperture emphazied? it also focus on the time of the day.

not the evening, nor the night, the day it says.

the morning is the coolest time of the day. When the sun comes up the temperture rises

literally is what I understand

[kivi]

kivi says: "ozell, you're just guessing, you don't know. You haven't studied, you don't know the Hebrew, you sure don't know the history of the tradition that comes from when G-d dictated the Torah to Moses and explained what each and every word meant, you don't know the colliquial usage of the terms. So, based on some translation, you are trying to imagine/fanatize/invent some sort of explaination. Unfortunately, your fertile imagination comes up with all sorts of wild ideas which lead you further and further from the facts."

the reason I take it literal is because the Lord was teaching Adam
the Lord was here on this earth literally walking with Adam.
a great example is when Abraham saw Melchizadek. Who was the High Priest of God, who also is Jesus.


Abraham met God.

The Lord was on this earth with Israel in a cloud by day and fire by night.

kivi says: Here we go again, pulling random and unrelated fagments of verse from all over the Old Testament, hoping to overwhelm the audience.

Gen 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.

kivi says: The colloquial 'cool of the day' means the evening right around sunset. If you have ever lived in the desert, as I have, you will know that as the sun goes down, the day cools off very quickly. Of course, as night goes on, it continues to get cooler until morning, but the colliquial use of the term means the early evening. Hebrew, unlike English, distinguishes between the day as a 24 hour period and the day as the time the sun is shining. Unfortunately, you have it confused.

why is the temperture emphazied? it also focus on the time of the day.

kivi says: It was just before nightfall on the 6th day, G-d was preparing the Shabbas meal, Adom and Chava sinned, they hide and covered themselves with leaves. G -d expected them at the Shabbas meal and they did not appear for the lighting of the Shabbas candles and the eating of the Shabbos meal. G-d noticed. G-d went looking for them. That makes sense. Would He wait all night long to go looking? NOot hardly! If you were a host and have guests you are expecting for the most important meal of the Week of Creation, and those guests do not show up, would you go to bed or even stay up all night, and wait to the morning to see what happened or would you go looking for them as soon as they were late? You would go looking. G-d went looking immediately. That makes sense.

not the evening, nor the night, the day it says.

the morning is the coolest time of the day. When the sun comes up the temperture rises

literally is what I understand

kivi says: Like all stories, they require an intimate understanding of the cultural context that story is set in. While some of that context is provided in the story, most of it is assumed because the writer and the reader share a common language and culture, so a lot of the context does not need to be stated. All throught the Torah, and in this particular story, that culture context is assumed. The 24 hour day starting at sundown and not a midnight the use of colloquial Hebrew the start of the only named day, Shabbas, on the weekly Jewish calender with the all important Shabbas dinner, including lighting candles; the absolute expectation that quests would be invited and cared for and looked for if they do not show. To a Jew with the life long drill of preparing for Shabbas, the detailed work, the strict scheduling, the absolute deadline of sundown, the sense of place that the Gan Eden story evokes is very very familar. A Christian, because they have a different context, would miss most of the context. That is why it can be so useful for any person, if they are learning the stories of another culture, to 1st investigate what the traditions of that culture say about itself before leaping into the dark and start guessing with no evidence or context.

[visionary]

So that particular cool of the day was the sabbath approaching?

[ozell]

kivi says: "ozell, you're just guessing, you don't know. You haven't studied, you don't know