Perversions of Law & the Lie:

Since many visitors have been ruthlessly pounded by religious 'fundamentalists' & the sexist theology of hypocrites, - I want to take a close look at 'toxic teaching' that promotes itself as the very 'words of the Lawd'!  Some study will reveal that the "Lawd" it comes from is non-other than the "god of this fallen world"! 
A well-crafted lie full of 'violence in waiting' comes from the mouth of the father of lies.  Let's examine the very first recorded statement the Devil ever uttered to mankind.  We'll compare this divisive message to similar modern messages & look for patterns.  What you're about to see will give you an insight into evil that most men remain oblivious to until their lives are ruined by it!

GE 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "God said, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

It's necessary to examine the "question" because it's loaded with psychological venom.  The Devil, symbolized by the serpent in the text, is a fallen angel -- one of the original agents in the creation.  He was keenly aware of what God had said & the nature of things, - so the first thing we know is that the "question", wasn't really a question at all!  It was a probe to find weakness. 

• So lie #1 was unspoken, "I have an inquiry". 
• Lie #2 is like the first.  It expresses the notion that "I heard this somewhere". 
• Lie #3 was the challenge itself, implying: "I want you to justify your position...". 
• Lie #4 was the unspoken premise that God's character was such that it was possible that He'd create a garden full of food & deny them any of it (to starve in the midst of plenty). 
• Not stated by the text, but implied by context is that Eve was hungry and probably eating at the time the question was asked, making lie #5 (unspoken but implied): "You're eating & God said you can't!"

At this point, it should be obvious that the one who posed the question is brilliant, full of wisdom, & a formidable enemy with an understanding of psychology that should make the reader take serious note.

GE 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,  but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

The probe sent by the enemy found the weakness as it intended.  Nowhere had God said "or even touch it".  What is fascinating about this point is that the term in the original Hebrew is "NAWGAH" for "touch".  NAWGAH can also informally mean "to lie with a woman".  In such context, one might use it to express amorous relations with, -- such as a person who warns another person not to TOUCH/NAWGAH his spouse.  Keep that concept in the back of your mind, because it becomes germane later on.

What the Devil's probe told him was that Eve did not have first hand knowledge of the specific command & that her knowledge was flawed. At that point, if he could get her to merely touch the fruit, she would probably be emboldened to go the next step & eat.  After all, in her mind: if touching it did no harm, then the entire commandment may have indeed been false.  Part of the Devil's strategy was probably to have rested his serpentine coils around some of the fruit, & while TOUCHING IT (casting doubt on the assertion that touching it was fatal), continued:     

GE 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like Gods, knowing good from evil."

We know the lie/s worked.  Eve ate & so did Adam; & the mess it caused required Jesus to fix it by way of the ultimate sacrifice (One side note: The Gospel message of the cross makes little sense until you understand that the fall of man recorded in Genesis had a profound effect on our physiology, perceptions & psychology - among other things.  Ironically, the more knowledge we gain in the "now", the more sense these scriptures make!)
I want to briefly address one point: Where did Eve get the idea that the fruit could not be touched?  Scripture suggests it was from Adam -- who did what many people might do: In order that she not eat of it, he expanded the command to include not touching as well.  Was Adam at liberty to add to God's commandment?  No. Paul wrote; 'Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."' - 1CO 4:6.  In the book of Numbers, the enemies of Israel tried to bribe a prophet of God to curse Israel.  Look what the prophet said: 'But Balaam answered them, "Even if Balak gave me his palace filled with silver and gold, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the LORD my God."'.  What is the result of saying what God did not say? "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." - PR 30:6  Is that all?  "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." - Rev 22:18  So, when Adam, who had heard the literal commandment of God - told Eve "...or even touch it", - what was inevitable cascaded into the events that followed!  Adam's command was proven false; & the plagues were added to them! 

Result of Sin - Animal Skin:

Previously, I discussed how in the Torah (Old Testament of the Bible) Adam added to God's word, & the result of that addition was catastrophic (How catastrophic? Prior to eating, Adam's body was very different.  Originally, it had no blood & the covering [surface] of it was a special adaptation of the Spirit (from what I can tell).  Eating the forbidden fruit was deadly because it compromised that covering & exposed them to the environment [much like some poisons attack certain body organs].  God's triage measure was to preserve the life of Adam/Eve by making coats of skin for them. God did not sew them a leather jacket.  The skin He made was LIVING animal tissue & had a blood supply [here is where blood entered humanity & it's the problem]. "The LORD God made coats of skin for Adam and his wife; And clothed them." - Genesis.    Sound far fetched?  Modern medicine routinely hooks men up to animal parts (like pig livers) to take over the function of a damaged organ until it can heal.  So, even today, we routinely use the [animal skin] as a proverbial "covering" - & by hooking it up to the blood supply, we let it animal organs take over the function of a human organ that was lost or damaged (causing massive complications - involving forced loss of immunity) [hello]!  God's use of epithelium was much more complete/seamless (all the way to genetic integration); & suddenly, with this understanding - all those nagging questions about why bad things happen to people are answered by the knowledge that man is now subject to the very same environmental forces as are animals because his protection in the natural world is but an animal skin! Other than our minds - we are like animals  --  As it is written: 'I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who can say the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"' - Solomon.  There is an amazing wager I found in the Scripture between God & Satan; -- And it involved SKIN ("ORE" in Hebrew -"Skin"/"Glory" {Job 2:4}).   The fact that Jesus was born in a barn (with other animals), should be a literary hint!  The fact that a manger is a food dish should be another literary hint (Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.)!  What Jesus did, - he did to solve a problem of immense proportions that affects every person born - separating them (by their very animal nature) from God.  Jesus provided the mechanism to bridge that gap.  He is the proxy & sole interface to God (true spirituality) because what he accomplished transcends mere head-knowledge.  By mechanism it connects our physical world back to the Spiritual "His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." -Eph 2.  (Or in computer-programming parlance: "God hacked his way back into damaged creation & recreated a perfect control interface -via Yeshua to bridge the chasm that had formed in order to unfold the remaining part of His plan & eventually recreate perfect order.  When He hits the reboot key, -is your vital data saved? CREATION 2.0 is gonna rock your worldview!") 
Why did I go off on this tangent?  It goes back to a better understanding about gender issues.  Sometimes the "coat-of-skin" doesn't fit a man beneath just right.  The troubles with humanity are connected to the animal skin & its blood supply (it literally has a mind all its own sometimes - see Gal 5:19-21).  Sexuality is proof that another dimension of human existence transcends the mere physical -- going beyond the skin.  Paul wrote that: "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." - Rom 8. HELLO!  Birthpangs are on the INSIDE which is often the only place where a person 'knows' that something is different.  Everyone else looks on the external, -- oblivious to the spirit within that does not necessarily find complete agreement w. the animal-skin containing it.  

It astonishes me to hear so-called "fundamentalists" yell phrases like "Adam & Eve; Not Adam & Steve" while completely ignoring the Scripture that plainly states that the physical body is yet unredeemed (remaining in an imperfect state)!  They mistake their natural physical appetites as if ' spiritual'; & declare judgment on those who don't conform to their professed sexuality (which they imagine to be part of a divine image instead of part of an animal skin that is passing away)!  Spiritualizing sex is exactly what fertility cults do.  It's a form of idol worship (where sexuality itself is the idol).  It seems that the modern counterpart to this very ancient pagan religious belief system is called FUNDAMENTALISM!  This is exactly what Jude (the half brother of Jesus) described: "Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them." - Jude 1:10  Let's make sure we don't repeat their errors.  Sex is an attribute of the animal skin (hey, without a blood supply, erections don't happen).  Like food, it does not bring us closer to God, -- but it can be used to hurt other people which is precisely why the law of Moses took such text space to address it. 
Paul summarized the entire Law quite succinctly: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love one toward another."; And about love, the apostle wrote: "Love works no ill toward its neighbor -- therefore love fulfills the law.".  Those principles don't seem to be the basis for any system of oppression I can think of!  It makes me wonder what "Jesus" the current religious right is following!  

Back to the lie in the Garden of Eden: I wanted to ask a rhetorical question; -- The question being: "Where did Adam get the idea to add the prohibition of merely touching (NAWGAH) the fruit?.".  The Scripture tells us that "Bad company corrupts good character".  We know that Adam had named the serpent (Gen 2:20).  In other words.  Adam was acquainted with the serpent.  I suspect he spent too much time around it (or vice versa).  I believe that it was the serpent who probably introduced the idea of moving the 'boundary' of God's prohibition from eating, -- to simply touching (as part of a diabolical plan).  It takes about a second to realize that "In the name of safety" [sic], all kinds of laws are being fashioned today; -- & many of these mala-prohibita laws are created by those who claim to be God's righteous & His legal experts.  Maybe these "laws" do just the opposite of what they pretend!  Let's remember that the first demon Jesus is recorded casting out of a person was in the temple (Luke 4)!  Was the serpent interested in involvement in the religious life of men?  Let's look at what John the Baptist said to the 'religious experts' of his time: 'But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Offspring of vipers, who has forewarned you to flee from the coming wrath?"'  Yup.  So, it can be hypothesized that the old snake is up to his old devices -- & often via the 'credentialed' experts of the day!  So, rather than dictate to you the "Law of God revealed"; - I'm going to simply say that it's you're job to look into these matters further.  I am not co-dependant on your agreement with me.  Verify.  Fair?

MORE...