From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Organization: shmorganization!
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:25:35 GMT

In article <sam.715443060@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>As a lead in, I'm hypothesizing here!  None of this should be construed to
>reflect any particular position that I hold!  This is all idle speculation!
>Ok, not so idle, but speculation none-the-less.

Fair enough, all of this is speculation for speculations sake. My words may
sound like attacks, but they are not, I'm only speculating also. Don't let
my words fool you into thinking I know the answers.

>>Genesis3 scenario:
>>God creates Adam and then Eve from Adam as symbolic of a man leaving his
>>father (Father?) and mother and clinging to his wife so that they become
>>one flesh. 

>The symbolism sort of depends on your view, eh?  If Original Sin is your
>understanding, the symbolism is a lot different than say, Irrenean theology
>which holds that we are created fallen and life is for education and
>growth.

Just for the record, I think OS is mostly a marketing gimick and I'm not a
beleiver in the ends justify the means. But what about this idea of woman
being created from man and thus symbolic of man leaving his father and
mother and clinging to his wife so they are of one flesh? Who is Adams father?
Does the same apply?

>Interestingly enough, there is no mention of that other tree, the Tree of
>Life.  It wold appear that the Tree symbolizes ataining knowledge so as to
>judge between good and evil.  If, as Augustine proposed, Adam & Eve were
>totally innocent, then the fruit of this tree (knowledge) caused separation
>from God because of the desires of man.  

Yeah, and notice how God warns Adam of the Tree of Knowledge but says
nothing of the Tree of Life. Why? This is a creation story right? But does
the creation stop when Adam is created from dust, or when Eve is created
from Adam, or when they eat the fruit, or when they get birthed or kicked
out of the Garden, or is the creation still occuring today in us? When will
the creation stop? Oh, and knowledge of good and evil in man causes a
separation from God, yeah because this is human being stuff. God is
transcendent of such a low level concept. This concept is for us to see the
world. This is the creation of human being here, not God. In order for
creation of something different, separation is required.

>Could the tree symbolize gaining knowledge of God?  In other words, by
>gaining wisdom, we learn more and more about how God works.  The whole
>story is turned on its head if one rejects the concept of Original Sin.

Yeah, so why not reject the concept? Or make two models, one with and one
without and see how they differ. What of instead of Original Sin you replace
Original Sacred? If human being is only human being, then doesn't a judgement
of relative goodness or badness not apply? Knowledge of good and bad, who is
that for, to help who judge whom? Does God need this knowledge and help in
judging? Is Original Sin or Original Sacred important for God? Have we
really failed His plan? Are we really good or bad, in His eyes?

>It doesn't appear that the Torah supports the concept of corruption of
>blood for sin (ie generationally transmitted sin). This appears to be a
>later construct, and Joshua relates God's plan to not hold the sin of the
>fathers against the children.

Um, not in Genesis but later in Mosaic-Law/Pentateuch, right? And if creation
is still occuring, if we are still consuming and reacting to the fruit, how
does this effect later constructs? Is time a judge of value? Closer to the
Garden or further away, good or bad?

>Where does that leave this particular Biblical story?  So far, to me, it
>seems more of an ex-post-facto reflection on reality than a description of
>actual events.

Does this matter either way? Are the two hard to tell apart?

>It would appear to be the case, if we take the literal position.  But if we
>examine it further, might not it be telling us that they were 'innocent'
>just that they had not yet acquired a set of moral guidelines.  Look at
>primative societies and the value they assigned life (low).  An eye for an
>eye was moderate, compared to previous concepts.

OK, a couple of ideas here. Primative societies may have assigned a higher
value on total life. The big difference is the recognition of the individual.
This is very modern European, ~12th century CE. Can you see how human sacrafice
means something different if the smallest unit of identity is the tribe? But
knowledge of the individual identity, is this good or bad, more
enlightened or less, closer to Eden or farther?
 
>>Enter the serpent who is said to be
>>(3:1)the shrewdest of all the wild beasts. 

>This is interesting, of course.  Paul (and other NT writers) assigned the
>serpent the identity of the Devil.  But, perhaps, it represents the
>natural, internal quest for additional knowledge, represented here by an
>external being.  In other words, the serpent represents the basic human
>quest for information.  Knowledge is power!

Hmm, could be. I forgot to mention that the serpent is considered a shrewd
or powerful animal in pagan religions because it can shed its skin and be
reborn. Think about the significance of being able to shed your skin. Also
the serpent may just be a convenient means for God to create. Perhaps this
is the meaning of serpent, to aid or hinder man, depending on your good/bad
judgement call, right? The judgement call is key, because everything ripples
from here, bad serpent means bad nature means bad knowledge ... The point to
keep in mind to me is that you are the one judging good and bad, you ate
the fruit.

>Voila.  The serpent didn't lie!!!  He sure misled Eve, but he didn't lie!
>Aren't we often deceived by our own desires and fail to recognize the
>proper reaction that we are to have?  Again, if we are looking at a parable,
>we can see that it is possible that the serpent simply represents our natural
>curiosity.  It killed the cat, after all.

Yeah, I think the good/bad judgement call colors the whole thing. Is the
serpent good or bad for doing what he did? He didn't lie because he didn't
have to, remember he is shrewd. One could also consider whether one should
even judge good or bad here, perhaps this just is. And natural curiosity seems
like a fit, given the choice of staying at home in a secure environment or
going out and possibly facing death in the cold cruel world, which is the
"right" human thing to do? Is the secure environment as secure as we think?

>Information leads to alternate perceptions.  What has in the past been
>assigned to 'demons' is today known as mental illness.  What was in the
>past assigned to the action of Gods is now known as weather patterns.
>So now, with the knowledge gained, Adam & Eve's perceptions have been
>irrevocably altered, and they begin to view things in light of this new
>perception.

Right, the fruit eating goes on even to today, doesn't it? Creation is not
finished yet?

>>God of course catches them and makes
>>the serpent a crawler who strikes at the heal of humans, who in return
>>step on the serpent's head. He makes Eve have severe pain at childbirth
>>and urges for her husband who shall rule over her [oh yeah, right!] 

>If we are looking at a parable here, then this would clearly explain the
>reason for the status quo of the times.  In other words, since God ordained
>this from creation, then it must be right.  Except that it already existed
>when the story was commited to paper.  Nice deal, if you can get it.

Yes, it does explain the status quo, but should this be maintained? Has the
creation story stoped? Should man rule over woman, husband over wife? Which
is the "right" way for human beings? Is equality of sex good or bad, closer
to the garden or farther away? Human being should do the right thing right?
But what is the right thing? Should we eat more fruit? Have we now exceeded
the knowledge of the snake and if so does that allow us to be more 
understanding of the snake's ways? Can we acknowledge snake's desire to
strike us and yet not step on snake's head in return? Is snake envious of
the level of knowledge we have obtained or not even aware? Does any of this
change if the snake is the Lord of the Underworld or are we dealing with
different agents now?

>>Then he kicks them out of the garden, (symbolic of birth?), 

>More symbolic of knowledge forcing a change of perception and view of
>reality, I'd say.

OK, I'll buy that. But is this a punishment? 

>The Tree of Life...symbolic of salvation.  At least in Christian circles.
>If we're talking about a parable here, then it would be man's chance to
>be fully present with God, and as the text says, be like him.  That is some
>sort of salvific information, but it isn't necessarily what we think of as
>salvation.  An example that begs a question:  Enoch!  He never died but
>walked with God.

Hmm, saved from what? But regardless, the Tree of Life or Eternal Life is a
big one. Why was Adam not warned of this one also? If you had access to the
Tree of Life, would you eat? And you thought eating the fruit of knowledge
was a tough call. I think eating the fruit of knowledge is a no-brainer, if
you know what I mean. I'd do it anytime. But the Tree of Life, now we have
a trick question. I know my answer, irregardless of commands or penalities,
but I'm not gonna give it away so easily. It's taken me quite awhile to
figure that out, and I can still change my mind, but unlikely given what I
have learned from eating the fruit of knowledge. Assuming a question at
death for entrance, I think this might be one of them.

>>Was it a setup? 
>No, I don't think it was a setup.  At least not in the way you mean.  Assuming
>for the moment literalness, and assigning to God the set of default
>Christian cocepts of Him, God knew in advance (omnisciene) what would
>happen and created anyhow.

Of course even we can pretty much predict the outcome, can't we? What does
this mean? And as for a meaning of setup, I'm not sure that I know what I mean
by that word. It does seem to have lots of possible meanings.

>>Did Adam and Eve have a choice? 
>If we are talking parable here, there was no choice.  The events related here
>are simply a way of explaining why things are the way they are and how they
>got there.  The 'temptation' is actually curiosity.

What does no choice do to Original Sin?

>>Where they legally competent to judge the results of their actions? 
>This is a tougher question, and again, relies on the literalness of the
>story for an answer.  If the story is literal, I think a case can be made
>that as innocents, they didn't truly understand the ramifications of what
>they were doing.  They know God had told them not to do it, but without the
>ability to judge between good and evil, how could they know?  Interesting
>dilemma.

Yeah, it is and then factor in the snake.

>>Did the serpent know more? 
>In the literaly story, the serpent knew the difference between good and
>evil, and understood the ramifications of what was happening.

I think so, more or less. Remember, the serpent could just have been being
true to being a serpent. Doing the right serpent thing to do.

>>Was the serpent duped, and he in turn duped Eve who then duped Adam? 
>I don't see any information on whether or not the serpent was duped, and so
>it would be pure speculation no matter how one reads the story.  There is
>other information about the fall of Lucifer, but that only applies by
>assigning the identity of the serpent to the devil.

Right. And given the fall of Lucifer which is another entire story in itself,
if one uses the snake as symbol or agent of Lucifer, then all sorts of
crazy things start happening. Something to keep in mind about good old
Lucifer, he presumably was already "punished" for his "crime" at this point.
How do we know that he has not reformed or is trying to aid man in following
a different course? Do as I say, not as I did.

>>Were the three punished and if so how severe were their punishments? 
>Interestingly enough, if we take the parable concept, there is no
>punishment!  The Eden story simply is a way of explaining the current
>situation in a religious way.  It reflects reality at the time it was
>written, as opposed to recording history.

And, who is it that ate the fruit and is applying the knowledge to judge?
How does the judgement effect us in turn. Should judgement be applied here
at all. Are we judging the creation itself? What are we judging here 
exactly? Surely we can use our knowledge to judge paper or plastic at
the store, but are we out of our league in judging Adam and Eve? Do I
hear someone laughing?

>From the other side, literally, there was punsihment all around.  It would
>appear that Eve suffered the most during life, but that all men suffered
>equally in being separated from God.  As for the snake, he was chased and
>punished by men, while before he was not.

Yes, but this is just the joys and sorrows of the world as created, right?
What would the world be like without pain, sorrow, death? Again, are we
applying the knowledge of good and bad correctly here? Is this like trying
to judge if God Himself is good or bad? Are there any limits to how far
we can take this knowledge of good and bad? And creation is separation,
right? How can that be good or bad? Can creation be sacred instead of
punishment, or neither? Does a baby enjoy being born? What about later, in
retrospect, after eating some of the fruit?

>I wonder where the talking snakes went?  Were they killed in the Flood? ;-)

Maybe they are still here? ::B^}

>>Is expulsion from Eden symbolic of expulsion from the uterus at birth? 
>I don't think this is the case...want to expound on this one?

I have some, right? Think about the progress of human being from the ritual
of sex to fetus, to birth, through teenage, and on to death at old age. The
ages of man and woman. Is there any connection with Eden? Is our creation
connected with the creation of Homo sapiens sapiens?

>>What were Adam and Eve like before they had knowledge of good and bad? Did 
>>they do the right thing? Did they commit a sin? 
>Well, this depends.  If the serpent is the externalization of curiosity,
>and life is to be a growth experience where we gain wisdom, then they did
>the right thing and didn't sin!!!
>
>Of course, Augustine, et al disagree.

Sure, and who is to say? You eats some fruit and ponder the universe.

>>If you were Adam or Eve, what would you have done? 
>I could have done nothing else.  Human nature! ;-)  It is impossible to
>avoid gaining knowledge or sinning.  Pick your way of understanding this,
>it still doesn't change our reaction.  And done freely, too!  Because of
>internal desires!

Hmm, but the sinning thing? I keep triping on that. You know why.

>As you said, I let my imagination run away with me...;-)  How did I do?

Pretty good, I think. At least I got some new ideas. All in all, it was
a pleasurable fruit eating experience. I feel no guilt.