Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:11:00 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>Genesis3 has been getting kicked around here and I thought it might be
>interesting to try and see if we can come to any modern interpretations.
>If you are a human being, you qualify as a possible interpreter, so have
>at it already. Now is your chance for fame and stardom, and maybe even
>some FREE GIFTS!
I like to know the quality and value of the gifts before I begin.  And the
chances of winning them.  I mean, really, how hard would I work for a
genuine simmulated diamonelle? ;-)

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.

>BACKGROUND:
>[Here is some quick generalizations of the religions involved, these are
>only generalizations and are not meant as insults or complements, only
>some possible info available for use in decoding Genesis3]

>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.

I'd say that the Garden symbolizes both the beginning and the end, in that
it represents the actual, full, presence of God with man.  With one minor
exception...the serpent.  We'll get to it/him later.

>The two are placed in the garden of Eden with all trees that
>are pleasing to the SIGHT and good for food, and the infamous tree of
>knowledge of good and bad, which is of course placed right in the middle
>of the garden. Just to make things interesting, God says to Adam, (2:16)
>"Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; (17)but as for the
>tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon
>as you eat of it, you shall die." 
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.  

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.
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.

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.

>Now, up to this point, Adam and Eve are not as modern humans, maybe more 
>like five year olds. The two of them are naked and feel no shame. 
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.

>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!

>Possibly smarter than Adam and
>Eve at this point. The serpent tells Eve, (3:1)"Did God really say: You
>shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" Trick question, eh? Eve
>replies, (3:2)"We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden.
>(3)It is only fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God
>said: `You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die'" Notice that
>already Eve's memory is fading slightly. And so the clever serpent
>replies, (3:4)"You are not going to die, (5)but God knows that as soon as
>you eat of it your EYES will be OPENED and you will be like devine
>beings who know good and bad. 
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.

>(6)When the woman saw that the tree was
>good for eating and a DELIGHT to the EYES, and that the tree was
>DESIRABLE as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also
>gave some to her husband, and he ate. (7)Then the EYES of both of them
>were OPENED and they perceived ... 
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.

>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.

>He
>makes Adam a toiler of cursed ground that sprouts thorns and thistles
>and an eater of field grasses from which bread shall be made by the
>sweat of his brow. 
Another explanation of an existing situation, assuming the ex-post-facto
creation of this parable.

>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.

>and says in parting, 3:22"Now that the man has become like one
>of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and
>take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" (23)So the
>Lord banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which
>he was taken. (24)He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden
>of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way
>of the tree of life.
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.

>So now it's your turn, what does it mean? Is the serpent the infamous
>Christian Devil? 
Perhaps.  This is simply one valid line of reasoning.  Just as the one I
gave, where the serpent is simply an externalization of an innate
curiosity.

>Can we see patriarchy trying to suppress matriarchy?
This is clearly a valid question, given that modern scholarship dates the
texts in such a way as to question exactly how the text was put together.
Tradition holds that Gen->Deut were written by Moses.  The current
multi-threaded scholarship holds that Gen 1 was written much later than Gen
2, but the redactors in Babylon...which of course calls into question what
we have here...

While I know the scholarship, I don't necessarily agree...just throwing out
the possibility.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>Did the serpent lie? 
As I said above, no!  He didn't!  He simply ommitted some important
information!

>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.

>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.

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.

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

>Is there a trinity here? 
No, I don't think so.  The average Old Testament Jew would be utterly aghast 
at the trinitarian claims of modern Christianity.  Many early Christians
didn't even agree with this.  (cf Nicene Creed and the Arian heresy, for
example).

>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?

>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.

>Did the serpent have knowledge of good and bad? 
In the literal interpretation, yes, he did.  The question has no meaning in
my hypothesizing about the story being a parable and there being no
Original Sin.

>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!

>And what about the tree of life? Attainable or not? 
Well, soteriology is the ultimate question, now isn't it!  Is salvation the
same as eternal life?  Are they different?  Augustine equated the two,
based on the NT writings.

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

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc