Genesis 2

In which we meet Adam and Eve.



Commentary
Skeptic's Annotated Bible

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

The commentary (linked above) suggests that "finished" here means that "No permanent change has ever since been made in the course of the world, no new species of animals been formed, no law of nature repealed or added to."  This is obviously anti-science and at odds with reality, so to believe this literally means you have to reject evolutionary biology and by extension, every branch of science that confirms evolution (anthropology, biology, microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, archeology, entomology, geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and cosmology).  
 

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

I'm sure it was just a symbolic gesture for Mankind, and not that he was tired.

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So, this is why people to go Church on Sundays, to honor God's day of rest by not working.  How do we know it's Sunday?  I know the SDAs (Seventh Day Adventists) believe it's Saturday (or, sunset Friday to sunset Saturday), but again, I'm not sure how they could know.  Not solely on the basis of Genesis 2:3, anyway.

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Here we go.  Even though God created man earlier in Gen 1:27, here he is creating him again.  Though I suppose the difference is that here, God is giving man a soul, setting man apart from just the other animals.  Does this mean that all of mankind created in Gen 1:27 now has a soul?  Or are we starting over with Adam being the first man?  If so, what about everyone created in Gen 1:27?  Oh this is so confusing.

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

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Of course, the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" are common religious motifs, not unique to Abrahamic religions.  Egypt, Persia, China, Japan, Norway, Germany, Turkey and India (and many others), all have similar concepts.  Rastafarians consider cannabis to be the tree of life, but that's another story.

2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

So, finding the names of rivers and descriptions of associated places I was excited, because it implied that we could locate these rivers and by extension, estimate the location of the Garden of Eden.  However, there are no such rivers.  Well, there is the Euphrates, but it doesn't share any of the geographic features described here.  The explanation I found here is that the Noahic Flood changed everything, so we cannot hope to locate Eden by these descriptions.  Ah well.

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

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.

Die, I say, DIE!  Or possibly live a very long life in exile, I can't be sure.  Okay, I get it, mankind gets cursed by mortality, it's not like it says "on that very day" he would die.  Oh, wait, it does.  I really have to stop picking at nits or I'll never get through this.

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

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

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

So it sounds like God is creating little clay models of every animal, showing it to Adam, and saying: how'd you like to mate with this?  Creepy.

The commentary has a different interpretation (of course): God was showing Adam that each animal has a mate of the same kind, and that Adam should similarly have a human mate.  At the same time, Adam is to name all of the animals, and Jamieson explains that Adam can do this because "His powers of perception and intelligence were supernaturally enlarged to know the characters, habits, and uses of each species that was brought to him."  So let me get this straight: Adam has supernaturally enlarged powers of perception and intelligence, but doesn't have the sense to know that he shouldn't fuck a sheep?  (Yeah, I'm not sure this commentary is actually helping here.)

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

2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

I never got this part of the story.  Why the rib?  Would she have been any less a perfect "help meet" if she had been made of dirt like man was (and all of the other animals God paraded in front of man a moment ago)?  Again, creepy.

2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Also forgetting that he had created men and women in Gen 1 earlier...

2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I'm sure there's a good etymology for this in Hebrew or Greek.  In English it just sounds like "woe," which doesn't bode well for women.

2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And the state shall impart many civil benefits unto the couple, such as favorable tax policies, inheritance and visitation rights, that shall be denied unto all couples that are not formed of one man and one woman.  Here we see the beginning definition of marriage: one man and one woman.  Yup, I'm sure the Bible never deviates from this moral, singular view, because God is perfect, the Bible is inspired, and what the Bible says, goes.  Stay tuned.

2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Why should they be ashamed?  Nudity is nothing to be ashamed of; I'm not saying they should be immodest, but the whole premise of this line starts an unfortunate view of sexuality as something to be ashamed of, rather than be accepted as a natural and normal part of life.  I find offensive the very premise that being naked in a garden is a cause for shame.  (They'd have shame if they ate from the tree of knowledge, I'm going to bet.)

You could say that I'm imposing my modern morality upon a story written 2000+ years ago, and that the precise formulation of a concept that was appropriate then may not apply equally well today.  Maybe, but if this is the inspired book of an omniscient being, you'd think the message could be formulated in a way that,  you know, doesn't become obsolete.