Freedom, Virtue, and Society - Book of Genesis

[QuikSand]

As I previously mentioned in the Life Syllabus thread, I am taking a seminar at St. John’s college, covering a number of great books and dealing with Freedom, Virtue, and Society. After three sessions (covering Huckleberry Finn and two Greek classics) I now have a decent sense of what to expect… and I’m now trying to get the most out of my next reading.

For the third class session, we are reading the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in creating a shitstorm religious or political debate in this thread… so if that’s your cup of tea, please keep it elsewhere.


Here is an excerpt from the pre-class announcement I received from the program coordinator:

The reading for December is short: THE BIBLE, "Genesis," Chapters 1 -11, which, you will find in any Bible of your choice to be no more than 7 or 8 pages. We do not supply this reading since it is readily available on the internet, and many people prefer to use their own. No matter which Bible you use, the translation usually starts with "In the Beginning...." Appropriate for our theme of "Freedom, Virtue, and Society," these issues are embedded in this rendition of the origins of our world. If you have read the Bible as a religious document in the past, try to put that aside this time, and read it as a text, as our St. John's students do at the beginning of their sophomore year, following Homer, Plato and Aristotle among others that they read in their freshman year. This reading is another testimony to how the great texts are still current, as the whirlwind of discussion revolves around "intelligent design."

My discussion session is next Wednesday -- if there’s anyone who might be interested in a discussion of Genesis, I’m game to be part of it both before and after my class session. I now have some optimism that I’ll come out of the class session with a bit more to say and share than I will have going in, as well.


A few resource links, for those who might be interested:

I don’t claim any particular insight into these matters, including any particular translation that would be most suitable for a link – so I’ll let you search for yourself. if I come across any scholarly publications online that seem worthwhile, I may post them here later…





For background reference (or if you just missed them), here’s a link to the previous threads, discussing:

Plato’s Meno

Aristotle’s Politics

[Airhog]

Something I have always wondered about in the bible, is that it says that god took seven days to create the universe. Is that to be taken literally? or more figuratively?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Something I have always wondered about in the bible, is that it says that god took seven days to create the universe. Is that to be taken literally? or more figuratively?

One has to go back to the earlier translations. We know what the Ancient Hebrew word being use and can determine its meaning by the same word being used in other contexts. Too many get hung up on the process of creation and miss the point completely.

If I were to look at Genesis in the context of literature, I would do so within the framework of its authorship and audience. It is thoroughly a Hebrew document, for its culture and meaning. I believe it does dovetail nicely with the New Testament but again, too many want to be dogmatic about the wrong things.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

A few resource links, for those who might be interested:[/url]

Eh? No links?

[QuikSand]

The first matter that seems appropriate for the subject is here, excerpted from an online KJV text:

002:016And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

002:017But 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.

. . .

003:001 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

003:002And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden

003:003But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

003:004And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

003:005For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

003:006And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

003:007And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

003:008And 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.

003:009And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

003:010And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

003:011And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

003:012And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

003:013And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

003:014And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

003:015And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

003:016Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

003:017And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

003:018Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

003:019In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

003:020And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

003:021Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

003:022And 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:

003:023Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

003:024So 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.

Seems to me that the banishment from Eden is a message about respect for higher authority… but in a study of virtue, it also seems to be (at least somewhat) about keeping one’s word. Eve and Adam made the (implicit?) promise not to eat from the tree of knowledge… and then broke their word.

Seems like a bit of a stretch, but maybe there’s something there other than the quick establishment of who’s supposed to be the boss, eh?

[QuikSand]

Okay, another pretty obvious tick for good/evil and so forth…

004:001 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

004:002And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

004:003And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

004:004And 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:

004:005But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

004:006And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 004:007If 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.

004:008And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

004:009And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

004:010And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

004:011And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

004:012When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

004:013And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

004:014Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

004:015And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

004:016And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

So, crime and punishment… is that all there is here? Any broader message about virtue?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

. . . but in a study of virtue, it also seems to be (at least somewhat) about keeping one’s word. Eve and Adam broke their (implicit?) promise not to eat from the tree of knowledge… and then broke their word.

Seems like a bit of a stretch, but maybe there’s something there other than the quick establishment of who’s supposed to be the boss, eh?

Of course, this was not a freely bargained for promise, either. God made them and told them not to eat from the tree. They did not really have a choice to do so.

If we are talking about virtue and society, maybe one can liken this to the social contract. My state (used broadly--not in a state v. federal sort of way) gives me police protection and roads and other goodies. In exchange, I "agree" not to do certain things--murder other citizens, take other people's property, etc. But I don't really agree to that, do I? By virtue of being born here, I am forced to accept the reality that I cannot take my neighbors car and the police will try to keep him from taking mine. I get a say in what the laws are, but if my side loses, I must accept those laws--even if I never bargained for the whole constitutional system in the first place.

This issues gets even more subtle, I think, when one starts to get into the distinction between laws that are malum in se (wrong in themselves) and malum prohibitum (wrong only because they are prohibited). Murder is the textbook example of the first one; speeding is the textbook example of the second. Is there an argument that, in order to be human (at least humans of virtue), we just need to accept the moral code that the vast majority of humans have decided is necessary (the Ten Commandments are a pretty good cheat sheet of those) and that most societies have placed into law--but that we are free to ignore laws about speeding and paying our taxes and can still be virtuious (though we may still go to jail)?

And what of that tree? Is taking from the tree of knowledge wrong in itself? Or was it wrong because God said it was wrong? And is that even a meaningful distinction if you beleive that God represents (or is the personification of) perfect wisdom & virtue?

[QuikSand]

So, I’m not entirely clear on how all this came together, but the decision to cause the great flood was certainly one with an element of virtue (or lack thereof) imbedded:

006:001 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

006:002That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

006:003And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

006:004There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

006:005And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

006:006And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

006:007And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

006:008But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

006:009These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

006:010And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

006:011The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

006:012And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

006:013And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

006:014Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

006:015And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

006:016A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

006:017And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

006:018But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

006:019And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

006:020Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

006:021And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

006:022Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

From my uneducated reading, this too seems mostly like a story about “who’s the boss” – but it’s obviously a notion about the “wickedness of man” which is, presumably, the converse of virtue.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Of course, this was not a freely bargained for promise, either. God made them and told them not to eat from the tree. They did not really have a choice to do so.

I certainly agree... I'm just working to put something other than "I'm the boss" in here as the underlying message. (And having some difficulty doing so)


Your remaining comments are helpful to me... and not far from the line of thinking that is the best I havebeen able to conjure up thus far.

[QuikSand]

I have to presume that our assignment to read through Chapter 11 is intended to get us to the story of Babel:

011:001 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

011:002And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

011:003And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

011:004And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

011:005And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

011:006And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

011:007Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

011:008So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

011:009Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

This seems a little more subtle to me than what, so far, seemed like quick summary judgments of wickedness followed by harsh punishments meted out by God. Here, I’m not quite sure what the phrase “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” really means. I take that it’s something of an indictment of man’s pride or lack of humility…another already recurring theme… and that this is what merits the retribution that follows.

Is there another way to encapsulate this story that I might be missing due to the language difficulties or just my overall density?

[albionmoonlight]

Re: Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel: In both stories, God asks the protaginists a question to which God knows the answer (Why are you clothed? Where is your brother?). In both stories, our heroes either lie or deflect blame for their sin: She made me do it. I don't know where my brother is.

So why does God ask questions to which God knows the answer? Is it to give the humans a chance to own up to their mistakes? Is there a message here that the cover-up is what gets you (or, at least, increases your punishment). As humans, we are all flawed. We will all act without virtue at times. Perhaps the mark of a man of true virtue is that he admits his failings and does not try to cover them up. Or, that is what we should attempt to do, anyway.

Re: Noah--Once again, you have a "promise" that really isn't bargained for. Build me an Ark. Our modern perceptions of fairness would certainly question whether Noah would be doing anything wrong by saying no.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Re: Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel: In both stories, God asks the protaginists a question to which God knows the answer (Why are you clothed? Where is your brother?). In both stories, our heroes either lie or deflect blame for their sin: She made me do it. I don't know where my brother is.

So why does God ask questions to which God knows the answer? Is it to give the humans a chance to own up to their mistakes? Is there a message here that the cover-up is what gets you (or, at least, increases your punishment). As humans, we are all flawed. We will all act without virtue at times. Perhaps the mark of a man of true virtue is that he admits his failings and does not try to cover them up. Or, that is what we should attempt to do, anyway.

That's good -- I hadn't even considered the act of questioning to be that important, but that seems like a better foothold than I had on my own.

I would, however, have to thnk it a minority opinion that if Adam & Eve had confessed to eating the apple that they would have escaped punishment. That would seem to send church dogma in a pretty trying direction.

But an interesting insight nonetheless.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I would, however, have to thnk it a minority opinion that if Adam & Eve had confessed to eating the apple that they would have escaped punishment. That would seem to send church dogma in a pretty trying direction.

Not to make this too religious, but Roman Catholics do beleive in the sacrament of Confession. If you confess your sins to a priest, and truly repent in your heart, and the priest absolves you, and you do your penance, then your soul is free from all sin at that point. If you have a heart attack right after you finish your penance, Church dogma is that you take the express train right up to Heaven (no stops in limbo for you). I don't know what other Christian denominations feel about confession, but there is a sense in the Catholic Church that admitting your sin and asking for forgivness (or, to be more precise, opening your heart to God's forgivness which is omnipresent) is enough to defeat that sin. Of course, a lot of that, I imagine, comes from the New Testament.

Getting back to the story, I think that Adam and Eve were screwed once they ate the apple--whether they admitted it or not. As soon as they consumed the apple, the knowledge began to corrupt paradise. Even outside of God doing anything to punish them--the sin itself started to punish them. Notwithstanding God's omnipotence for a second, there does not seem to be anything God could do to unring that bell. The banishment was just the cherry on the sundae. Paradise was lost as soon as they lost their innocence. So the message here may be that sin (or lack of virtue) is harmful in itself. Even if God and society leave you alone, the very fact that you act without virtue harms you. (Of course, you get the sense that Cain could have lived just fine had God not sent down a punishment, so I don't know how that fits in).

(Also, if you have not, I recommend that you read Paradise Lost. It is nothing less than the smartest man who has ever lived (IMHO) discussing these very issues in the context of a great, great work of literature).

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

(Also, if you have not, I recommend that you read Paradise Lost. It is nothing less than the smartest man who has ever lived (IMHO) discussing these very issues in the context of a great, great work of literature).

It's next on our list, in fact. I'l await your thoughts.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's next on our list, in fact. I'l await your thoughts.

Mrs. A. is getting her Phd in Renaissance literature. She's the real expert in the house. When you start the thread, I'll make sure to point it out to her.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Not to make this too religious, but Roman Catholics do beleive in the sacrament of Confession. If you confess your sins to a priest, and truly repent in your heart, and the priest absolves you, and you do your penance, then your soul is free from all sin at that point.

Hmmm... I'm aware of the Catholic notion of confession, but I hadn't really thought of God's question(s) as being an opportunity to confess in that sense. It's really the repenting that matters, isn't it? (Not just the admission of committing sin)

In any event -- that certainly can have some bearing on the discussion, even if it does lie a bit outside the four corners of the reading. (Heck, last month's discussion was almost exclusively outside what Aristotle said, we talked - at least implicitly - far more about GWB than Aristotle)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Hmmm... I'm aware of the Catholic notion of confession, but I hadn't really thought of God's question(s) as being an opportunity to confess in that sense. It's really the repenting that matters, isn't it? (Not just the admission of committing sin)

If I remember my Catholic teachings, you are right. A confession/admission of sin that does not reflect true repentance in one's heart does not provide one with absolution.

I guess one way to look at the Adam and Eve / Cain and Able stories and stay within the text is simply to ask "Why does God ask questions to which God already knows the answer?"

Giving them an opportunity to own up to their misdeeds (which owning up would seem to therefore have some effect) is the only answer that springs to my mind immediately.

[Ajaxab]

I haven't really developed these ideas in my mind, but have you thought about how there seems to be virtue in order and evil in disorder?

[Bonegavel]

Reading this as pure literature, it is interesting to note that God commanded,

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Eve, talking with the serpent later confirms this by saying,

“We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Confirmation that Eve had heard the decree. We can establish that she knows and understands god's command, no matter how silly it seems. Now, he didn't tell them that the punishment was expulsion from the garden, painful childbirth and damnation for the entirety of man, but he did tell them that they would die.

So, the serpent says,

“You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So, he really doesn't "temp" Eve as much as tell the truth. Seems that god may have lied when he mentioned the death part, because later god says,

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

Seems that partaking from the tree of life doesn't cause death, but rather immortality? So god had to throw them out or man would've been god-like?''

In addition, the serpent was especially damned for simply telling Eve the truth. As far as I can see, nothing the serpent told her was incorrect.

In fact, if the author hadn't thrown in this line...

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

... I don't believe there would be any reason to suspect that the serpent was doing anything more restating what god had already said.

[QuikSand]

Interesting take, BG -- so what are we to make of the serpent's eternal punishment... "cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

Cruel and unusual, perhaps?

[Hurst2112]

"and the laaaaammmmb lies dooooowwwwwn on Broaaaaadwaaaaaaay"

Great Genesis album.

carry on

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

"and the laaaaammmmb lies dooooowwwwwn on Broaaaaadwaaaaaaay"

Great Genesis album.

carry on

Hear, hear.

I dread this supposed reunion thing, though... I envision Peter walking around dressed as a giant flower while the rest of those fools do their little "I can't dance" walk around the stage. Nothing good comes from this. Current Genesis fans don't care about the Gabriel years, there's nothing to be gained from a reunion for anyone.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Hear, hear.

I dread this supposed reunion thing, though... I envision Peter walking around dressed as a giant flower while the rest of those fools do their little "I can't dance" walk around the stage. Nothing good comes from this. Current Genesis fans don't care about the Gabriel years, there's nothing to be gained from a reunion for anyone.

I do not know of this reunion. Cool! Is it going to be with Steve Hackett?

I for one love the early stuff. Abacab was great as well. Invisible Touch was the last that I would listen to.

[st.cronin]

best threadjack ever

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

best threadjack ever

doesn't any 'jack' get vetoed if the thread started contributes to the jack?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

doesn't any 'jack' get vetoed if the thread started contributes to the jack?

It's not a direct connection in this case ... and not an expected one given the way the thread title is worded. But if you want to call it a tangent instead of a jack, I won't object. It was still pretty cool to watch.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's not a direct connection in this case ... and not an expected one given the way the thread title is worded. But if you want to call it a tangent instead of a jack, I won't object. It was still pretty cool to watch.

Oh no, it was intended as a full on jack!

[AENeuman]

I took an undergrad class called "Moral and Ethics of the Hebrew Bible" it was by far my favorite. The professor used "East of Eden" as our key to understanding the stories. The class had probaly more to do with me going on and getting the masters in theology than anything else.
Anyways, the best Gen info/book is Bill Moyers "Genesis a living conversation" here's the pbs link with loads of great stuff: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/genesis/

It is important to remember there are at least three writers of gen. the old school yahwehs, the mystical elohims, the priestly peep's and some editors. Gen is a great mix of very old stories/myths You can see this with the two creation stories (out of dust and from a rib) and from the two intertwined flood stories. Also, remember gen was written down while the jews were in exile. The redactors wrote down the old stories so that it may survive, even if they don't. This is has a lot to do with the theme of punishment-redemption-salvation in gen.

Speaking of themes, one of my favorite interpretations of the garden is merely the act of growing up. God's rule/approach to his creation changes a lot throughout the bible and this is one of them (the flood is another great one). It is easy to suppose the "sin" was sexual (nakedness, a snake, etc). Therefore, one can say the parental law/love that god gave adam and eve ended here. It can be said god was shocked that adam and eve did not want to follow in bliss, that they wanted choice, responsibility, suffering, in other words, experience.
This act of separation can be seen in the punishments. God tells adam he will have to toil, work for his food (which is now an urgent matter). Adam will be responsible for the well being of himself and those he loves, not god. Eve is given the pains of birth. This pain is obviously way more than physical pain. This is a pain of separation. Eve will have to experience the same pain god just did; seeing his creation turn against their better judgment in order to be independent and experienced.
The very next story is of course cain and abel, so eve right away eve gets this pain. It was not the failure to worship that killed abel, it was his brother's fault in not knowing he was his keeper. The responsibility of life is now only our own, not god's. Out of our need to be existential beings we have to take responsibility for one another.
Ok. sorry to go on and on, it's just such a rich subject

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Interesting take, BG -- so what are we to make of the serpent's eternal punishment... "cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

Cruel and unusual, perhaps?

The really interesting thing (for me) of this is that I haven't read this in probably 20 years but I remember from Sunday School and church (raised Conservative Baptist here) the story being basically the Serpent's fault (the great temptation of Eve thing), but when I just read it for this thread, there is no mention of the serpent temping her at all (am i reading it wrong?).

The serpent didn't hold Eve down and force it down her throat. The serpent merely told her the truth as later evidenced by god's own words. And yet the serpent is, as you point out, "cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

Are they making the point that the *fomentor* is worse than the person actually committing the transgression? Or, at the very least, as guilty?

Another thing to come out of this is the concept that WE, as Adam/Eve's ancestors, are essentially paying for their mistake. We are left out of Eden and denied "Paradise" simply because the first 2 people made an error in judgement.

They didn't just damn themselves and get kicked out of paradise... they essentially damned us all to lives of toil and hardship.

[QuikSand]

Thanks for the link, AEN...

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It is important to remember there are at least three writers of gen. the old school yahwehs, the mystical elohims, the priestly peep's and some editors.

I'll confess that it is quite literally impossible for me to "remember" this... so I'll assume that I'm not the only one who comes to this discussion without extended knowledge of the supposed origins of biblical writings.

Why would you say that this is important for a reader like me to keep in mind? Is the origin, or perhaps the motivations of the author(s), critical to my understanding the parables it contains? Just curious... I find the observation interesting, but not in a literal sense "important" on its surface.


edit -- though I can concede that knowing there are potntially multiple authors contributing to this work might help with one possible explanation for the competing creation-of-man stories that occir in the early chapters of Genesis.

[Buccaneer]

David, I wondered how you missed this the first time. Seemed right up your alley, so to speak.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'll confess that it is quite literally impossible for me to "remember" this... so I'll assume that I'm not the only one who comes to this discussion without extended knowledge of the supposed origins of biblical writings.

Sorry about that demanding language...

Unlike the gospels where the different versions are separate the torah is all mixed together. The result of this is you can have many different and yet correct meanings of these texts. Such as the Yah's knew and used the serpent as a symbol for egypt.
Going Campbell for a moment... these stories are successful myths. Their fluidity of language and themes allows them to remain relevant. one fun place to look also is the midrash, the jewish fill-in-the-blank writers. they created great stories such as lilith, and what happened to cain.
One great theme in the torah is the shaft the hunters get. abel was the shepard-dead. noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk-castrated (er, well. that's another story). jacob takes the birthright and gets blessed from his dumb hunter brother esau. there's a reward for those that settle and stop being nomadic.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

The really interesting thing (for me) of this is that I haven't read this in probably 20 years but I remember from Sunday School and church (raised Conservative Baptist here) the story being basically the Serpent's fault (the great temptation of Eve thing), but when I just read it for this thread, there is no mention of the serpent temping her at all (am i reading it wrong?).

The serpent didn't hold Eve down and force it down her throat. The serpent merely told her the truth as later evidenced by god's own words. And yet the serpent is, as you point out, "cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

Are they making the point that the *fomentor* is worse than the person actually committing the transgression? Or, at the very least, as guilty?

Another thing to come out of this is the concept that WE, as Adam/Eve's ancestors, are essentially paying for their mistake. We are left out of Eden and denied "Paradise" simply because the first 2 people made an error in judgement.

They didn't just damn themselves and get kicked out of paradise... they essentially damned us all to lives of toil and hardship.

I think you can certainly make the argument that the act of just telling Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit was the temptation put forth by the serpant.

God told them that they could eat from any of the trees except this one. If they ate from this one they would die. They took that as fact. The underlying theme that Quik keeps running into "I'm the boss" is what implies that the serpants' actions are evil. The author is making the point through all of these stories that his way is right and any other is wrong and that God will punish those that stray from the path.

It's human nature to want to test things that we are told are off limits. The threat of death is generally a sufficent deterrent to keep people from pushing some limits. In this case however the serpant says that she will not die if she eats the fruit. That is the temptaion right there. "Why would God say I am going to die if I eat this fruit if it isn't true? What is God hiding from me?" So not only was the threat of death removed, but the serpant said that if they ate of the fruit they "sall be as gods". Seems pretty tempting to me.

[Mac Howard]

I always find it fascinating that the only, certainly the first, evil that is revealed by the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is nakedness. Surely this leads to the commonist restriction of freedom in Judeo-Christian cultures, the restriction that always makes it to the top of the list - the censorship of sex. Even though sex for reproductive purposes is exempted from sin, Eve's punishment is to suffer from the consequences of sex (the pain of childbirth). Could it be the author was impotent and was determined others should not experience the pleasure he was denied?

[QuikSand]

Well, the most interesting discussion point from the class (last evening) on this was when our tutor offered this question:

"So, did God 'set up" Adam and Eve to fail the test? Was that part of His plan?"

Got some lively discussion to ensue... which got focused a bit better when he corrected a comment of mine, and pointed out that our assigned reading was only the first 11 chapters of Genesis, meaning that we don't overtly have the information that God is indeed an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity. Instead, in that context, we seem to have God here as a rather clumsy woodworker, who makes a number of mistakes along the way with his creations and sometimes has to throw them out and start over.


We also had some intriguing conversation about nakedness as well, Mac -- though I personally was pretty dismissive of them as just being part of the "explanatory" nature of myths to begin with. Looking at this as a complex myth, whose goal in part was to explaion a variety of things, it just seemed to me that one of the things being explained was the human nature embarassment about the onclothed human body. Perhaps at the time of these writing's origins, this was a point of more contention or argument than it is today?

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by primelord

I think you can certainly make the argument that the act of just telling Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit was the temptation put forth by the serpant.

God told them that they could eat from any of the trees except this one. If they ate from this one they would die. They took that as fact. The underlying theme that Quik keeps running into "I'm the boss" is what implies that the serpants' actions are evil. The author is making the point through all of these stories that his way is right and any other is wrong and that God will punish those that stray from the path.

It's human nature to want to test things that we are told are off limits. The threat of death is generally a sufficent deterrent to keep people from pushing some limits. In this case however the serpant says that she will not die if she eats the fruit. That is the temptaion right there. "Why would God say I am going to die if I eat this fruit if it isn't true? What is God hiding from me?" So not only was the threat of death removed, but the serpant said that if they ate of the fruit they "sall be as gods". Seems pretty tempting to me.

But god later said that "...lest they eat from the tree and live forever" which i take as — they eat from the tree and don't die.

Seems like god lied there.

[Bonegavel]

Looking at this from a contemporary point of view, the fact that god's ONLY rule, if you will, was to not eat the fruit from a certain tree seems extremely nonsensical. Is it possible that this was also "nonsensical" in the time it was written?

What I'm getting at with this is the fact that maybe the point of it is to basically point out that the law itself doesn't matter, it is simply the act of obedience that matters. God could make a decree forbidding the drinking of tea from a teacup and the only important part is that you obey and not that the decree makes any sense.

Another interesting point is that god didn't forbid adam to murder, or lie, or any 10-commandment like decree. God only forbid the eating of a fruit.

Also, is it of any significance that God gave his decree about the fruit thing only to adam (ie, before eve was made)? Because note that it was she that did the eating first and not adam who had first hand discussion with god about the not-eating-fruit-thing.

Or is that simply a woman-bashing aspect? Painting them as the original, original sinners. Really is interesting to see that the serpent found it necessary to get Eve to do this and not adam.

[revrew]

I know my entry into this thread will infuse a theological perspective (rather than the academic angle of virtue studies), but I noticed a couple of assumptions made--and missed--that might help clarify the discussion.

First and most importantly, the conclusion that the conditions of the first "law" were a reflection of a LACK of choice is in error. It is the very purpose of God's command in the garden to give man choice. Prior to the first command, the garden was a place without death, sin, selfishness, or wrongdoing of any kind. There was no evil in the created garden (though the fallen angel Lucifer chose evil in the spiritual realm, much as Adam and Cain chose it in the physical realm), and as such, Adam had no "choice" but to live in obedience to his God. No other choice existed.

The forbidden tree was the way in which God said, "You now have a choice. You can obey me, or you can introduce yourself to something you have no knowledge of--evil. I will not force you to love me, but give you the choice." Hence, the tree is called the "tree of the knowldedge of good AND EVIL." Adam and Eve already knew good, but they did not know evil.

This also reveals how the first command was not nonsensical, but fundamental to defining human nature and the nature of love. It was this first command that gave humans the capacity to choose love. It was this command that gave humans the capacity to choose evil, in essence, to choose anything at all. God was giving to humans a freedom--a god-like freedom--that he did not extend to anything else in earthly creation.

When the snake came tempting, he tempted much as he does to this day: Two parts truth with a twist of lie. It wasn't God's command that the snake twisted, but God's motive. While God said, "Do not eat," for the motive of protecting Adam and Eve from the knowledge of evil, the snake suggested that it was because God was holding back something. "Why would God hold this back?" is the question the snake implies. And without an answer, the snake plants the idea that God is holding it back because it's desireable. Therein is the lie. Since when is the knowledge of evil desireable? It is an implied lie, the implication that if God forbade it, it was for less than pure motives. Eve "saw the fruit was desireable to eat," so she bought the idea that God was fobidding something she would want. That selfish God. I'm entitled to this knowledge!

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by revrew

First and most importantly, the conclusion that the conditions of the first "law" were a reflection of a LACK of choice is in error. It is the very purpose of God's command in the garden to give man choice. Prior to the first command, the garden was a place without death, sin, selfishness, or wrongdoing of any kind. There was no evil in the created garden (though the fallen angel Lucifer chose evil in the spiritual realm, much as Adam and Cain chose it in the physical realm), and as such, Adam had no "choice" but to live in obedience to his God. No other choice existed.

The forbidden tree was the way in which God said, "You now have a choice. You can obey me, or you can introduce yourself to something you have no knowledge of--evil. I will not force you to love me, but give you the choice." Hence, the tree is called the "tree of the knowldedge of good AND EVIL." Adam and Eve already knew good, but they did not know evil.

Trying to ask this fairly: how much of the above is a product of a simple "reading" of the book itself, and how much is a product of the estensive study and experience that you bring to the story yourself?

Your interpretation here sounds nominally pretty convincing, but I don't know that if we're reading this as literature whether there is any interpretation that can be so unambiguous.

[st.cronin]

Theologically speaking, it's my opinion that you have to really jump through hoops to get Genesis to resonate with the Gospels. Jesus really took things in a totally different direction than anything in the Old Testament.

[AENeuman]

Socially the Torah can show us a people searching for stability and meaning. The hebrew god was just one, minor at that, among several in the region. what the torah shows is a people dealing with the problem of correct faith/worship. over and over the problem of suffering despite correct worship is addressed.
One way to deal with this problem was to change the notion of god. the parental god of "do this and you will get this" went out of favor after the exiles, the "other" gods won.
a god that does not protect those that worship the most/best creates a true crisis of faith (see ecc.)
what gen is great at is showing this crisis of faith. adam/eve and fall, cain/abel and brothers keeper, abraham killing his son, tower of bab, rebecca and her sons, etc. but despite this lack of rewards, earhty or heavenly, the jews contined on in a profound way, 10 commandments, etc.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Trying to ask this fairly: how much of the above is a product of a simple "reading" of the book itself, and how much is a product of the estensive study and experience that you bring to the story yourself?

Your interpretation here sounds nominally pretty convincing, but I don't know that if we're reading this as literature whether there is any interpretation that can be so unambiguous.

I'm afraid I don't completely understand your question, and I confess I'm completely in the dark as to the perameters of "literature study," which is why I've hesitated to jump into these waters so foreign to me.

I will elaborate that my understanding comes from reading and studying Genesis in the context of the following 65 books of the (protestant) Bible. My understanding also naturally reflects my personal experience, etc.

I will confess that this understanding does not come from a focused study of ancient Hebrew, nor any seminary class on the topic. I have found that many academic studies of the Bible carry the intention of explaining it away instead of understanding it; so I have a natural skepticism toward purely adacemic biblical studies.

But I have always believed that to understand "holy" writings, a person needs to talk with followers of those writings, with those who have wrestled with the writings' apparent contradictions, underlying subtexts, and contexts for years. For example, if I presumed to study the Koran by myself, I might find it a violent, murderous perversion of the Judeo-Christian narratives. How fair would that be? To really understand it, I would want to talk with an adherent of the Muslim faith. I would want to hear his version of the Koran's treatment of jihad, women, Muhammad's credibility, etc. Likewise, I thought some orthodox Christian explanation of Genesis might be helpful to those unfamiliar or distanced from the Christian faith. I'd be curious to hear a Jewish perspective on it, too.

(And st. cronin: I completely disagree with your OT/NT viewpoint, but that's perhaps best left for another thread)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by revrew

I'm afraid I don't completely understand your question, and I confess I'm completely in the dark as to the perameters of "literature study," which is why I've hesitated to jump into these waters so foreign to me.

I will elaborate that my understanding comes from reading and studying Genesis in the context of the following 65 books of the (protestant) Bible. My understanding also naturally reflects my personal experience, etc.

I will confess that this understanding does not come from a focused study of ancient Hebrew, nor any seminary class on the topic. I have found that many academic studies of the Bible carry the intention of explaining it away instead of understanding it; so I have a natural skepticism toward purely adacemic biblical studies.

But I have always believed that to understand "holy" writings, a person needs to talk with followers of those writings, with those who have wrestled with the writings' apparent contradictions, underlying subtexts, and contexts for years. For example, if I presumed to study the Koran by myself, I might find it a violent, murderous perversion of the Judeo-Christian narratives. How fair would that be? To really understand it, I would want to talk with an adherent of the Muslim faith. I would want to hear his version of the Koran's treatment of jihad, women, Muhammad's credibility, etc. Likewise, I thought some orthodox Christian explanation of Genesis might be helpful to those unfamiliar or distanced from the Christian faith. I'd be curious to hear a Jewish perspective on it, too.

(And st. cronin: I completely disagree with your OT/NT viewpoint, but that's perhaps best left for another thread)

FWIW, this is a debate that literature scholars have about all types of literature: how much should history and world events and the biography of the author affect our readings of the texts.

There is/was a school of thought that said that all texts should stand on their own--cultural and historical context were simply not relevant.

There is/was a school of thought that says that all texts need to be read as products of their authors and the time in which they were written.

And there are many variations on that theme.

So, for Genesis, there are questions as to whether we should take into account the generations of really smart people who have added their two cents to this discussion. On the one hand, it provides very valuable insight into these texts and what they mean to us.

On the other hand, there is some value to just looking at the "four corners" of the document to see what, if anything, we can gain from that.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Looking at this as a complex myth, whose goal in part was to explaion a variety of things, it just seemed to me that one of the things being explained was the human nature embarassment about the onclothed human body. Perhaps at the time of these writing's origins, this was a point of more contention or argument than it is today?

My reading of that particular myth - the tree of knowledge of good and evil - is that it is imposition not explanation. It is intended to lay down the rules regarding nakedness, which I take to mean sex as I see nothing intrinsically sinful about nakedness - the embarrassment surely comes from the breaking of taboos not nakedness itself.

I can think of a number of very practical reasons for this imposition. The restriction of disease is the most obvious. Even in the relatively elevated understanding of disease in our own time, AIDS wraught havoc as a result in part of the relaxation of sexual morals. STDs would have the potential to devastate communities in earlier times.

The second reason comes from a history lecture I recall many years back when it was pointed out that in patriarchal societies where power is passed on through heredity it is essential that the powerful are able to determine that their offspring are genuinely theirs. In the absence of DNA testing, the restriction of sexual freedoms and the insistence that marriage was the only acceptable environment for sexual activity, were the best way of ensuring that power passed down to their own heirs. As motherhood is obvious but fatherhood not so then the restrictions (conveniently) apply to women far more than men.

And from my own cynical view of religion - that the priesthood will always do its best to maintain its control over its community - the priesthood realises that sexual passion has the power to overwhelm religious duty and observance and lead the faithful astray. To this day Catholic priests are required to be celibate to keep their minds on the job

Whether or not the myth only refers to nakedness I'm not certain perhaps because I'm from a Christian culture. Of the three religions that include Genesis in their religious literature the Christian religion associates only our "naughty bits" with the concept of sin from nakedness whereas Juduism includes to some extent the head and Islam the whole body. But even in Islam it is the power of nakedness to arouse sexual desire that renders it sin - there is nothing quite like a female ankle for driving men wild