Eve in the Garden and the taking of the fruit, forbidden ?

[other one]

14 minutes ago, Sister said:

 

Can anyone notice something interesting about this verse?

  Genesis 2:8   And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

 

He doesn't say eastward of what?

[other one]

If he's using Jerusalem as a starting point, if you go far enough eastward, you get to my house in Shawnee Oklahoma.... Not quite up to Eden standards, but it's pretty good.

[Retrobyter]

17 minutes ago, Sister said:

 

Can anyone notice something interesting about this verse?

  Genesis 2:8   And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

 

Shalom, Sister.

I notice several things: First of all, the garden was NOT where G-D formed the man.
Second, G-D PLANTED (naatah = fixed) the garden on the east end of Eden.
Third, G-D had already named the area in which the garden was planted, `Eden meaning "Pleasure."
And, a garden (Hebrew: gan) means "fenced in."

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, again, Sister.

I should then venture to ask some questions that one may ponder:

What was in the REST of 'Eden meaning "Pleasure" outside the garden?
How was this garden "fenced in?" Was it surrounded by rocks? or a hedge? or mountains?
This "gan" is an orchard of trees. Were they arranged in a particular order or were they planted haphazardly?

We are also told that this "gan" was watered by a river that flowed out of `Eden, flowing eastward through the garden, and then was parted into four different rivers. That would also mean the place G-D called "`Eden" was HIGHER in elevation than the garden, and that the four rivers that flowed from the garden were lower in elevation.

See, there's MUCH to wonder about!

[Your closest friendnt]

30 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Your closest friendnt.

No, Adam had nothing common to new born babies. He was CREATED full grown; He was not BORN. A navel is "a scar on the abdomen at the attachment site of the umbilical cord." (Wikipedia, emphasis mine.) Why would G-D choose to mar His creation of a man with a SCAR?! It would be unnecessary and misleading.
Besides, the LACK of a belly button would be proof positive that THIS man was the FIRST of G-D'S Creation of human beings! Thus, it would be fairly easy for any of his progeny to recognize their "prime progenitor!" Think of the LACK of a belly button as God's SIGNATURE on His ultimate design!

Shalom RB

I apriciate the fact that you are a good and critical analitical thinker,

Let's aproche the subject matter from both points of view, a d who can tell if we along the way we discover, who knows what.

If we see Adam without the mark, and in fellowship with Eva.

There is no point of conversation when they look at one another without the presents of the mark.

On the other hand when both of them are having the mark, that may well be a conversation item, to point to things yet to come. 

Some how aleviating the fear, as what is happening to me.

It may well be that, the witness the animal Kingdom, but how about the morning sickness, quite a shock for both of them. 

And how about the pride of I am the special one. 

Should that also make his children feel inferior, would that not be a daily reminder to them, creating in them a feeling of I inferiority in them, as opposed a state of superiority to Adam. 

Babies are born with experiences and memories, how about Adam, maybe one day we will know.

 

 

[Ezra]

On 19/03/2016 at 1:20 AM, gdemoss said:

Please help me see how you can conclude such things given only that which is written without adding to it. 

One does not have to "add" anything to arrive at a conclusion in this matter (which need not have been discussed at such great length to begin with). Just ask yourself the simply question "What is the anatomical significance of the navel?"  If it is connected with the birth of a baby, and the first man and woman were never babies, why would they show the marks of being in a womb?  This is so elementary that it should not even come up as an issue.

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, Your closest friendnt said:

There is no point of conversation when they look at one another without the presents of the mark.... On the other hand when both of them are having the mark, that may well be a conversation item, to point to things yet to come. 

Why would the conversation of the first man and first woman centre around the navel? That is totally bizarre.  

They were given the stewardship of the Garden of Eden, and they had the privilege of having fellowship with God. You really believe they would talk about something that did not even exist before their children were born?

[other one]

well I guess I started that.....    we should get bach to the thread.

  But then again I've had my say about that so I guess I should just go away now....

[gdemoss]

12 hours ago, Ezra said:

One does not have to "add" anything to arrive at a conclusion in this matter (which need not have been discussed at such great length to begin with). Just ask yourself the simply question "What is the anatomical significance of the navel?"  If it is connected with the birth of a baby, and the first man and woman were never babies, why would they show the marks of being in a womb?  This is so elementary that it should not even come up as an issue.

If you were not there and no one who was there has told you how it was done then by default the only choice is guessing.