Genesis And The Fall

[Ssel]

When honestly seeking any truth it is important to remember that just because 9 out of 10 salesmen fall to the temptation of distortion or lying, does not mean that there isn't a 10th honest salesman selling a valid truth.

[All Gods Fail]

Sinewav, the Creator, cut sticks and put them in a bag.

Ha ha.

 

First, it is a little hard for me to believe that the Ute Indians ever had the word "Sinewav" in their language.

 

Take it up with the website: http://www.southernutemuseum.org. I don't claim to be a Ute spokesman in any way.

 

But besides that, IF, IF there is a translation of their story which is consistent, complete, and relevant, and especially if it then agrees with what science has deduced, then they could very well be right.

 

What I believe is the proper translation of the Bible agrees completely with science as to the origins of Man as well as the influences of all things. There is no conflict except between the scientists who know only literal readings and the religious who also only know literal readings (mostly the SCC).

 

The literal readings are simply non-sense. And even though many translations can be claimed, I am only aware of one that actually strictly meets the criteria for ANY translation or cohesive thinking.

 

Claim whatever you prefer, but by all means, prove me wrong.

 

Prove you wrong? WTF are you talking about? I was making a comparison of creationist myths by contrasting the Ute myth w/Genesis. Are you claiming Genesis is consistent, complete, and relevant (whatever that means)? And that it agrees with science? And the Ute version does not?

 

Origin stories of religions and cultures are ALL orally created, re-told and refined for many, many generations before (if ever) they are written down. What's the diff between the Israelites and the Ute's stories? They both do the same thing for the same reasons. You should study some of them - Aztec, Celtic, Lappis, etc. The Hebrew version comes off a little convoluted and childish compared to a lot of them.

 

My point was that as origin stories go, the Ute's is much more entertaining and spiritually significant for it's deceptive simplicity. I love the idea of these little stick people running pell-mell out of a celestial bag! I don't believe it is 'right' however, anymore than I believe the Israelite version (literal, mystical, or metaphorical).

[BuddhistCommunist]

Genesis is merely an interpretation of creation, probably stimming from a composition of popular folktales. Easy as that. Thats all the bible is. A composition of Folktales by someone wanting power and using religion as the base for it.

[Ssel]

Are you claiming Genesis is consistent, complete, and relevant (whatever that means)? And that it agrees with science? And the Ute version does not?

I wouldn't presume to judge the Ute version without far more study.

 

In contemplating what you relayed about the story, I can easily envision that what has happened is that an English person, being familiar with science, was asking an Indian Priest of his version of the creation. The Indian might possibly have never even thought of such before he was asked.

 

I imagine that the word "Sinewav" probably came from the Priest waving his hand through the air perhaps with no words in an attempt to communicate "the spirit of all things". He waved his hand in a fashion that the English man recognized as a "sine wave" so he simply wrote it down that way.

 

But if he did this, then how many other words did he take for granted, like "sticks". What the Ute meant when he used the apparent stick analogy could have been a great many possibilities.

 

The coyote probably is similar to what the Bible would depict as the "Devil" or perhaps the original serpent of sin.

 

Without a great deal more information, the guessing could go on forever.

 

The only reason at all that I support the validity of the Bible story is simply that I know of a metaphorical translation that makes the entire story make sense and also explains a great deal of how the Israelites have behaved for thousands of years.

 

Add to this that SO many mythologically based nations have fallen, yet the nation of Israel is still growing, then the probability that they know something very real becomes evident (although still not guaranteed).

 

 

.. the Ute's is much more entertaining and spiritually significant for it's deceptive simplicity.

Yes, entertaining. Without understanding those 3 requirements of translating, then every literal reading can be little more than mere entertainment.

 

But to judge something as mere myth without going to the trouble of investigating its possible translations is being judgmental. Announcing and arguing publicly that something is invalid when such studies have not been done, is allowing yourself to affect the lives of others irresponsibly.

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

well as far as how it is known, well history isn't exact, there are various educated guesses about this stuff. As much as I have studied I'll admit not being aware of all the processes that were involved in coming to that conclusion. However, it does seem to me in the context of the Lilith story that it is the best explanation of the symbolism of the rib, heck even in passage in the bible it makes a big deal about Eve comming from Adam's flesh. You also have to look a the culture, and understand how the storys were put together, it might help if you read the full Lilith story for yourself, as I did in one of my religion classes. Of course knowing Hebrew and reading the stuff in the orginal would be best, but neither one of us know any of that.

 

It also should be noted that Adam and Eve are created seperatly in the other story.

 

Your interpretation seems to be farily unlikely to have been common in ancient Judaism, for one thing it would seem to put men and woman on equal footing, considering the anti-woman bent in most of the old testiment it seems unlikely thats how any ancient Jew read that passage. This culture, as well as all cultures at the time treated women about equal with farm animals.

 

Of course understand for me this is more of a mental exersise, I don't think Adam, Eve, or Lilith were real people. They were stories told over and over among that people group until they became believed as true, but esentally were designed to be moral lessons of some kind (whether I happen to agree with the moral or not) Stories like this, or David killing the Giant, Danel and the lions den ans such are all the same.

They are simalar to the story of George washinton and the Cherry tree, it never happened but it was a story that apropreated some well known person to teach a moral lesson. And of course you could probably find lots of people in this country who believe the story about Washinton really happned, but its just mythology. Just like Washinton, David was probably a real person, but probalby didn't do half the stuff the bible atributes him doing.

 

Of course if you are reading the bible in a non literal way, thats not important, just as with the story of Washinton and the cherry tree( while not history) teaches a lesson about honesty. If the lesson is true then the value of the story is in the lesson. Of course I personally don't like about half of the lessons in the bible but thats just me.

[Ssel]

Genesis is merely an interpretation of creation, probably stimming from a composition of popular folktales. Easy as that. Thats all the bible is. A composition of Folktales by someone wanting power and using religion as the base for it.

This is an accusing supposition, can you support it?

[Ssel]

Of course I personally don't like about half of the lessons in the bible but thats just me.

I believe that this is the case because the Bible is not attempting to merely tell of moral stories in an allegorical sense, but telling of actual events but in a symbolic manner.

 

You seem to have accepted that "my version" is a version which tells of Adham being a single human, in which case what you are saying would become true. But if Adham was merely an individual many other logical and historical evidences come into conflict.

 

The attitude toward women would still be upheld by the translation that I am talking about because it reveals that women are more prone to such temptations and men are prone to the temptations of following the women into trouble. This exactly explains why men in the middle east treat women as something to hide from themselves and never allow to have authority.

 

It exactly fits the Jewry, the Muslim, the Shiite, and all of the others.

[Ssel]

The Sumerians also have some interesting pictures on the tablets, including those that look like rockets in silos.

But does the story comply with scientific evidences?

[Ssel]

Why is the Moses story believable to you but not this? Sumerians were around long before the Jews and that story plus the FACT the OT Laws are similar to the Code of Hammurabi are too much of a coincidence.

I don't share your perspective that just because a law was thought of by someone else, that it invalidates the law from being authentic.

 

Very many laws are made because they make sense to people. They made sense to other people even before and they probably made sense to others even before those.

 

During the time of Adham, many laws were enforce, but we have no record of what those laws were. They would have predated all of our recorded history. Which ones were merely passed through the ages and which ones were reinvented would not be something we could derive.

 

The name "Seth" for example could easily be 10,000 years old. We simply have no way of knowing that. If this were true, then the name could be seen in a variety of cultures across the world.

 

The cultures that we can see evidence of are only a small fragment of what was there.

[Kuroikaze]

Very many laws are made because they make sense to people. They made sense to other people even before and they probably made sense to others even before those.

 

I don't think his point was to say the law was invalid but that it wasn't nessarally handed down my Yahwey.

 

Of course I personally don't like about half of the lessons in the bible but thats just me.

I believe that this is the case because the Bible is not attempting to merely tell of moral stories in an allegorical sense, but telling of actual events but in a symbolic manner.

 

You seem to have accepted that "my version" is a version which tells of Adham being a single human, in which case what you are saying would become true. But if Adham was merely an individual many other logical and historical evidences come into conflict.

 

The attitude toward women would still be upheld by the translation that I am talking about because it reveals that women are more prone to such temptations and men are prone to the temptations of following the women into trouble. This exactly explains why men in the middle east treat women as something to hide from themselves and never allow to have authority.

 

It exactly fits the Jewry, the Muslim, the Shiite, and all of the others.

 

I'll admit you MAY be right....certainly historians get things wrong from time to time. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. No disrespect ment to you at all, but the word of someone who 1. is Jewish, 2. Has a PHD in Jewish Mythology and 3. Speaks fluent Hebrew, is simply worth more than your opinion. I mean, in reality I don't even know what your qualifications are.

 

Oh and the person I was speaking of was one of my religion teachers in college, and the interpretation I gave you was both in one of my books and supported by my profesor, sure she might be wrong, but you have to admit chances are good she, in general, knows more about the subject than you do.

[All Gods Fail]

The only reason at all that I support the validity of the Bible story is simply that I know of a metaphorical translation that makes the entire story make sense and also explains a great deal of how the Israelites have behaved for thousands of years.

 

So what is this metaphorical translation?

 

But to judge something as mere myth without going to the trouble of investigating its possible translations is being judgmental. Announcing and arguing publicly that something is invalid when such studies have not been done, is allowing yourself to affect the lives of others irresponsibly.

 

You honestly don't see any truth in the Ute creation story? And why it is probably more truthful than Genesis?

[thomas]

Concerning when the OT was written:

 

In the 2. Kings 22 we read how the book of the law was found in the temple while Josiah were King.

 

Now - as far as I understand - there are good reasons to think that there never was a book that had disappeared. Instead some persons had gathered stories from various oral traditions and put those stories together in one book. In this way the people got a common god (Jahweh and Elohim becomes the same god) and a common history as God's choosen people. This way the King could get authority and unite some tribes into one Kingdom.

 

The point is, that history can be used to gain authority. Don't say, "I got a new smart idea". Say instead that that you got the key to unlock old hidden truth, and then you got the power to control others.

 

But also, I don't think it always is interesting to know the intention of the original author. Should we know why the story of the fall originally was told? or should we know why this story made it to be part of the torah? or should we know what the first christians saw in that story since they selceted it as part of the bible?

[Ssel]

Should we know why the story of the fall originally was told? or should we know why this story made it to be part of the torah? or should we know what the first christians saw in that story since they selceted it as part of the bible?

"Should" is a precarious word.

 

What anyone should do depends on what they're after. If you're looking simply for truth, then you do one thing. If you're looking for whom to give credit, then you do another. If you're looking to lay blame, then another still.

 

My concern as to why to bother with any of the Biblical stories is that a lot of blame is being misplaced due to a great deal of understandable misunderstanding. But more than that, the Bible reveals methods that people are using today concerning how to affect other people. Some of these ways concern how to get people to become suspicious and misplace blame. In a way, it is like reading a book on psychology and discovering that the methods revealed in the book are being used on the people around you.

 

Even this wouldn't be relevant unless you saw that much of the trouble being generated wasn't really necessary.

 

Often to go forward, you have to look back for a while to see what has already been done and to settle old issues.

[BuddhistCommunist]

Genesis is merely an interpretation of creation, probably stimming from a composition of popular folktales. Easy as that. Thats all the bible is. A composition of Folktales by someone wanting power and using religion as the base for it.

This is an accusing supposition, can you support it?

 

Easily. No one just starts believing something, at first they follow their culture and or family whichever is closer. Then as they age they start making their own judgments about the world. Well Judaism didn't just appear from thin air, it has its roots in Paganism. Yahweh started most likely as a mountain god, the same as Baal, to inspire their troops against their longtime enemies of the region, the Caaninites. After more time, Yahweh was then given more and more properties of "EL" the supreme Caananite God. When the Isrealites conquered the area, they declared their God to be supreme. The reason The Jews religion ended up being as Bloodthirsty as we all know, is that the Jews were constantly fighting for survival. The Hindu's, Shintoists, Buddhists, Celts, Norse and all the others all had a difference because of one aspect, they weren't fighting for faith. The reason the Jews were, and the others weren't, is because the jews had an equally powerful enemy with an equally powerful religion that the Jews overcame. Thus, their Spiritual Superiority idea comes into play. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are still existing like the ancient Jews acted, constantly at war with a power as strong as them known as each other. All religions stim from folktales and worldly challenges that have shaped their faith into what it is today.

[NotBlinded]

It was also stated that all are born in sin. This is a fact as long as you understand what sin really is. A new born child is striving to survive and knows nothing but selfish concerns. It takes time for the young child to learn how to cooperate and eventually how to selflessly love.

I have heard that it could be opposite. Now, this being opposite doesn't mean that everything that is relevant to what you have said is incorrect. Strangely, it seems to be saying the same.

 

I have heard (in reference to the tree of knowledge) that children are born perfect because all they know is getting what makes them happy (yes, this can be seen as selfishness but is it prior to knowledge?). They reach out to love their caregiver naturally. They don't worry about the future or the past. Then, when they begin to speak, they begin to think and make comparisons. Then, as life progresses, they learn that they are not perfect because someone is always telling them how to behave and which behaviors are bad and which are good. We begin looking for good outside of ourselves because we believe, with 100% faith, that we are not what we should be. Yes, we have faith in that and what we are investing our faith in is a lie. It doesn't matter that it is a lie, we have used our 'knowledge' to come to this understanding. This is 'knowing' good and evil. I see you as describing the process of 'knowing', whereas this is looking at the outcome of this 'knowing' (and then we have action). Knowing does not discriminate what is true from what is false.

 

I don't see this as anything contrary to what you said, just a different starting base. A base that maybe can be compared to what is said of Jesus saying, "Be as little children..."

[NotBlinded]

I see the bible requirement to be like children in that they are gullible and will believe whatever adults tell them. They don't know any better so they just blindly follow along...thank goodness many of us has rid ourselves of that mentality.

 

I find it insulting to have some ancient book tell me that I'm a sinner for thinking and questioning.

I completely understand that.

 

It's not the thinking and questioning that's seen as 'wrong', but the identification with the thoughts as to who you are. This notion says that you are naturally loving and caring until one begins to identify with their thoughts and then claims the thoughts about themselves as who they are. This is being separate from god.

 

This is what I understand it as saying. It matters which qualities of children are viewed when reading it. If being overly trusting (gullible) is viewed as wrong because of the way we think about reality, then this is what one will see while reading it. It doesn't negate our natural state of being trusting.

 

Edit: Please don't take that second statement in the last paragraph as personal. I reworded it several times and this is the best I can do trying to relate something that is on a macro scale while responding to an individual.

[NotBlinded]

I see the bible requirement to be like children in that they are gullible and will believe whatever adults tell them. They don't know any better so they just blindly follow along...thank goodness many of us has rid ourselves of that mentality.

 

I find it insulting to have some ancient book tell me that I'm a sinner for thinking and questioning.

I completely understand that.

 

It's not the thinking and questioning that's seen as 'wrong', but the identification with the thoughts as to who you are. This notion says that you are naturally loving and caring until one begins to identify with their thoughts and then claims the thoughts about themselves as who they are. This is being separate from god.

 

This is what I understand it as saying. I guess it matters which qualities of children are viewed when reading it.

 

What I wrote was not to be an insult to you, NTTBL, hope you didn't take it that way. I just don't see where sin comes in, I'm trying to "get" what you're saying but it isn't registering.

I was worried about the same thing! Look at how I edited my post as to not sound insulting to you. You didn't insult me at all.

 

The only 'sin' I can understand is that of not knowing who we are, or missing the mark as it says. If we are who we identify our thoughts with, what happens when our thoughts change? Are we as unstable as our thoughts or are we naturally loving, caring, trusting before we internalize our thoughts as our identity? This is missing the mark, or being separated from god (here, god is used as a metaphor for what is viewed as 'good' states of being).

[Amanda]

It's not the thinking and questioning that's seen as 'wrong', but the identification with the thoughts as to who you are. This notion says that you are naturally loving and caring until one begins to identify with their thoughts and then claims the thoughts about themselves as who they are. This is being separate from god.

 

The only 'sin' I can understand is that of not knowing who we are, or missing the mark as it says. If we are who we identify our thoughts with, what happens when our thoughts change? Are we as unstable as our thoughts or are we naturally loving, caring, trusting before we internalize our thoughts as our identity? This is missing the mark, or being separated from god (here, god is used as a metaphor for what is viewed as 'good' states of being).

 

Hi NBBTB!

 

I always find your insights so enriching! I think I got a similar interpretation of the metaphor of Genesis. It is when the 'serpent' said to Eve... "you'll be like God"... which made her think she wasn't good enough already. Yet she was in the likeness of God! Again, it is not knowing who we are, and claiming our thoughts as us instead of the awareness of these thoughts as us. This, I believe brought separation from God.

 

It seems to me that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is judgement. The forbidden judgement, fruit, is condemnation. Blaming someone else, God, or the devil for what we do inappropriately is to vacate our own accountability and responsiblity.

 

I think when a rib was taken to make woman, it was a metaphor for a side of man, roles of mankind separated out of man and given exclusively to woman so that each would be a helpmate for each other.

[NotBlinded]

It's not the thinking and questioning that's seen as 'wrong', but the identification with the thoughts as to who you are. This notion says that you are naturally loving and caring until one begins to identify with their thoughts and then claims the thoughts about themselves as who they are. This is being separate from god.

 

The only 'sin' I can understand is that of not knowing who we are, or missing the mark as it says. If we are who we identify our thoughts with, what happens when our thoughts change? Are we as unstable as our thoughts or are we naturally loving, caring, trusting before we internalize our thoughts as our identity? This is missing the mark, or being separated from god (here, god is used as a metaphor for what is viewed as 'good' states of being).

 

Hi NBBTB!

 

I always find your insights so enriching! I think I got a similar interpretation of the metaphor of Genesis. It is when the 'serpent' said to Eve... "you'll be like God"... which made her think she wasn't good enough already. Yet she was in the likeness of God! Again, it is not knowing who we are, and claiming our thoughts as us instead of the awareness of these thoughts as us. This, I believe brought separation from God.

 

It seems to me that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is judgement. The forbidden judgement, fruit, is condemnation. Blaming someone else, God, or the devil for what we do inappropriately is to vacate our own accountability and responsiblity.

 

I think when a rib was taken to make woman, it was a metaphor for a side of man, roles of mankind separated out of man and given exclusively to woman so that each would be a helpmate for each other.

Thanks!

 

That would make sense about the fruit. The devil made me do it!

 

I am not sure about the rib. I have also read that the Hebrew word means 'side'. Which would mean to split man in half. I have also read that Adam represented the spiritual being (god) in perfection. I don't know what it means from a spiritual sense yet but what if rib meant something like the ribs in a ship that made the ship whole and protected it from storms (emotional)? This male/female combination is in every individual whether they are male or female because they are both in spirit as is a spiritual human. Adam is the spirit and Eve is the soul.

 

The link below has a really good interpretation of The Garden of Eden if you are interested.

 

Here

[thomas]

 

But, frankly, it sounds a lot more like recent excuse making for accepting divorce.

 

Ssel

 

This is probably off topic, but I do wonder about ethics. What are the ethic concequences of your worldview?

[Ssel]

This is probably off topic, but I do wonder about ethics. What are the ethic concequences of your worldview?

Could you be just taaaaaad bit more specific?

 

I am extremely concerned about ethics myself. If not for that, I very probably wouldn't be here at all. But I'm completely lost as to what you are calling my "worldview" and which catagory of ethics are you asking about?

[Cerise]

Quinn, in his novel Ishmael, interprets the story of the Fall of Adam in this way:

 

Everyone is vaguely aware that there have been two ways of looking at the Agricultural Revolution within our culture, two contradictory stories about its significance. According to the standard version--the version taught in our schools--humans had been around for a long time, three or four million years , living a miserable and shiftless sort of life for most of that time, accomplishing nothing and getting nowhere. But then about 10,000 years ago it finally dawned on folks living in the Fertile Crescent that they didn't have to live like beavers and buzzards, making do with whatever food happened to come along; they could cultivate their own food and thus control their own destiny and well being. Agriculture made it possible for them to give up the nomadic life for the life of farming villagers. Village life encouraged occupational specialization and the advancement of technology on all fronts. Before long, villages became towns, and towns became cities, kingdoms, and empires. Trade connections, elaborate social and economic systems, and literacy soon followed, and there we went. All these advances were based on--and impossible without--agriculture, manifestly humanity's greatest blessing.

 

The other story, a much older one, is tucked away in a different corner of our cultural heritage. It too is set in the Fertile Crescent and tells a tale of the birth of agriculture, but in this telling agriculture isn't represented as a blessing but rather as a terrible punishment for a crime whose exact nature has always profoundly puzzled us. I'm referring, of course, to the story told in the third chapter of Genesis, the Fall of Adam.

 

Both these stories are known to virtually everyone who grows up in our culture, including every historian, philosopher, theologian, and anthropologist. But like most thinkers of the mid-19th century, who were content with the mere fact of evolution and felt no pressure to explain it, our historians, philosophers, theologians, and anthropologists seem perfectly content to live with these two contradictory stories. The conflict is manifest but, for them, demands no explanation.

 

For me, it did. As evolution demanded of Darwin a theory that would make sense of it, the story in Genesis demanded of me a theory that would make sense of it.

 

There have traditionally been two approaches to Adam's crime and punishment . The text tells us Adam was invited to partake of every tree in the garden of Eden except one, mysteriously called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As we know, Adam succumbed to the temptation to sample this fruit. In one approach, the crime is viewed as simple disobedience, in which case the interdiction of the knowledge of good and evil seems entirely arbitrary. God might just as well have interdicted the knowledge of war and peace or the knowledge of pride and prejudice. The point was simply to forbid Adam something in order to test his loyalty. Under this approach, Adam's punishment--banishment from Eden to live by the sweat of his brow as a farmer--was just a spanking; it doesn't "fit the crime" in any particular way. He would have received this punishment no matter what test he had failed.

 

The second approach tries to make some connection between Adam's crime and his punishment. Under this approach, Eden is viewed as a metaphor for the state of innocence, which is lost when Adam gains the knowledge of good and evil. This makes sense, but only if the knowledge of good and evil is understood as a metaphor for knowledge that destroys innocence. So, with roughly equivalent metaphors at either end, the story is reduced to a banal tautology: Adam lost his innocence by gaining knowledge that destroyed his innocence.

 

The story of the Fall is coupled with a second that is equally famous and equally baffling, that of Cain and Abel. As conventionally understood, these two brothers were literal individuals, the elder, Cain, a tiller of the soil, and the younger, Abel, a herder. The improbability that two members of the same family would embrace antithetical lifestyles should tip us off to the fact that these were not individuals but emblematic figures, just as Adam was (Adam merely being the Hebrew word for Man).

 

If we understand these as emblematic figures, then the story begins to make sense. The firstborn of agriculture was indeed the tiller of the soil, as Cain was said to be the firstborn of Adam. This is an undoubted historical fact. The domestication of plants is a process that begins the day you plant your first seed, but the domestication of animals takes generations. So the herder Abel was indeed the second-born--by centuries, if not millennia (another reason to be skeptical of the notion that Cain and Abel were literally second-generation brothers).

 

A further reason for skepticism on this point is the fact that the ancient farmers and herders of the Near East occupied adjacent but distinctly different regions. Farming was the occupation of the Caucasian inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent. Herding was the occupation of the Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula to the south.

 

Another piece of background that needs to be understood is that in very ancient times farmers and herders had radically different lifestyles. Farmers were by the very nature of their work settled villagers; but herders (by the very nature of their work) were nomads, just as many present-day herding peoples are. The herding lifestyle was in fact closer to the hunting-gathering lifestyle than it was to the farming lifestyle.

 

As the farming peoples of the north expanded, it was inevitable that they would confront their Semitic herding neighbors to the south, perhaps below what is now Iraq--with the predictable result. As they have done from the beginning to the present moment, the tillers of the soil needed more land to put to the plow, and as they've done from the beginning to the present moment, they took it.

 

As the Semites saw it (and it is of course their version of the story that we have), the tiller of the soil Cain was watering his fields with the blood of Abel the herder.

 

The fact that the version we have is the Semitic version explains the central mystery of the story, which is why God rejected Cain's gift but accepted Abel's. Naturally, this is the way the Semites would see it. In essence, the story says, "God is on our side. God loves us and the way we live but hates the tillers of the soil and the way they live."

 

With these provisional understandings in place, I was ready to offer a theory about the first part of the story, the Fall of Adam. What the Semitic authors knew was only the present fact that their brothers from the north were encroaching on them in a murderous way. They hadn't been physically present in the Fertile Crescent to witness the actual birth of agriculture, and in fact this was an event that had occurred hundreds of years earlier. In their story of the Fall, they were reconstructing an ancient event, not reporting a recent one. All that was clear to them was that some strange development had saddled their brothers to the north with a laborious lifestyle and had turned them into murderers, and this had to be a moral or spiritual catastrophe of some kind.

 

What they observed about their brothers to the north was this peculiarity. They seemed to have the strange idea that they knew how to run the world as well as God. This is what marks them as our cultural ancestors. As we go about our business of running the world, we have no doubt that we're doing as good a job as God, if not better. Obviously God put a lot of creatures in the world that are quite superfluous and even pernicious, and we're quite at liberty to get rid of them. We know where the rivers should run, where the swamps should be drained, where the forests should be razed, where the mountains should be leveled, where the plains should be scoured, where the rain should fall. To us, it's perfectly obvious that we have this knowledge.

 

In fact, to the authors of the stories in Genesis, it looked as if their brothers to the north had the bizarre idea that they had eaten at God's own tree of wisdom and had gained the very knowledge God uses to rule the world. And what knowledge is this? It's a knowledge that only God is competent to use, the knowledge that every single action God might take--no matter what it is, no matter how large or small--is good for one but evil for another. If a fox is stalking a pheasant, it's in the hands of God whether she will catch the pheasant or the pheasant will escape. If God gives the fox the pheasant, then this is good for the fox but evil for the pheasant. If God allows the pheasant to escape, then this is good for the pheasant but evil for the fox. There's no outcome that can be good for both. The same is true in every area of the world's governance. If God allows the valley to be flooded, then this is good for some but evil for others. If God holds back the flood then this too will be good for some but evil for others.

 

Decisions of this kind are clearly at the very root of what it means to rule the world, and the wisdom to make them cannot possibly belong to any mere creature, for any creature making such decisions would inevitably say, "I will make every choice so that it's good for me but evil for all others." And of course this is precisely how the agriculturalist operates, saying, "If I scour this plain to plant food for myself, then this will be evil for all the creatures that inhabit the plain, but it'll be good for me. If I raze this forest to plant food for myself, then this will be evil for all the creatures that inhabit the forest, but it'll be good for me."

 

What the authors of the stories in Genesis perceived was that their brothers to the north had taken into their own hands the rule of the world; they had usurped the role of God. Those who let God run the world and take the food that he's planted for them have an easy life. But those who want to run the world themselves must necessarily plant their own food, must necessarily make their living by the sweat of the brow. As this makes plain, agriculture was not the crime itself but rather the result of the crime, the punishment that must inevitably follow such a crime. It was wielding the knowledge of good and evil that had turned their brothers in the north into farmers--and into murderers.

 

But these were not the only consequences to be expected from Adam's act. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is harmless to God but poison to Man. It seemed to these authors that usurping God's role in the world would be the very death of Man.

 

And so it seemed to me when I finally worked all this out in the late 1970s. This investigation of the stories in Genesis was not, for me, an exercise in biblical exegesis. I'd gone looking for a way to understand how in the world we'd brought ourselves face to face with death in such a relatively short period of time--10,000 years, a mere eyeblink in the lifespan of our species--and had found it in an ancient story that we long ago adopted as our own and that remained stubbornly mysterious to us as long as we insisted on reading it as if it were our own. When examined from a point of view not our own, however, it ceased to be mysterious and delivered up a meaning that not only would have made sense to a beleaguered herding people 8,000 years ago but that would also make sense to the beleaguered people of the late twentieth century.

 

As far as I was concerned, the authors of this story had gotten it right. In spite of the terrible mess we've made of it, we do think we can run the world, and if we continue to think this, it is going to be the death of us.

[Ssel]

Quinn, in his novel Ishmael, interprets the story of the Fall of Adam in this way:

Quinn seems to have understood the story of Cain and Able only very slightly better than the typical protestant.

[Amanda]

I am not sure about the rib. I have also read that the Hebrew word means 'side'. Which would mean to split man in half. I have also read that Adam represented the spiritual being (god) in perfection. I don't know what it means from a spiritual sense yet but what if rib meant something like the ribs in a ship that made the ship whole and protected it from storms (emotional)? This male/female combination is in every individual whether they are male or female because they are both in spirit as is a spiritual human. Adam is the spirit and Eve is the soul.

 

The link below has a really good interpretation of The Garden of Eden if you are interested.

 

Here

NBBTB, that was an interesting site! I think we are really saying the same thing in many regards.

 

Remember that this was written about 6000 years ago, and the last ice age had recently ended and a new wheat had mutated making sowing and harvesting a more abundant food supply possible. This now allows a stable life style, instead of nomadic. Until this happened, I think mankind's roles were probably quite similar amongst both sexes. With the new situations of towns, it now became necessary to take a 'side' of mankind, roles, and divide them amongst the sexes. Maybe Adam gives the rib to the woman to represent protecting her (physically and emotionally)? This created helpmates... IMHO.

 

That would still make the Adam is spirit and Eve soul interesting too. As mankind was made of the dust (flesh nature?), then God blew his spirit into him, and he became a living soul. I thought the soul is what the spirit and the body joined are, perhaps representing the mind?

[Cerise]

Why would Eve need protecting in the garden?