Rereading Genesis as a metaphorical tale

[Phi]

Have you ever looked closely at the story?
From what I read, Elohim never actually told Eve not to eat of the Knowledge tree.
He told Adam if he ate of it he would surely die.
There is no mention that Elohim told Adam to tell Eve not to eat of the tree either.
The serpent did not tell Eve that Adam would not die if he ate, only that Eve wouldn't.

As a result , not of the serpent's lie (he didn't) but of the serpent's (ancient symbol of magic& medicines) interference with YHWH's man, the serpent must go on the earth's dust. Perhaps a metaphor for herbs growing in barren soil that must be searched for, while in Eden, they grew on/like trees/plants in a lush garden.
Adam is commanded to leave the garden, and to live ever afterward by the sweat of his brow until he dies. (Elohim never once says Eve must die. It does not even state that Eve is punished!)
Eve, on the other hand is actually rewarded with two great gifts:
1. the ability to bear children,
2. the love for a man.
Both gifts had a downside, birth would be painful (without Eden's herbal plant magic)and the man she loved had been banished from Eden.
But how could anyone call these punishments when throughout all the rest of the Hebrew stories, marriage and children were the very gifts a woman would pray for?

Eve's love for Adam caused her to follow him from the garden, and love caused her ultimate death.
*********************INTERPRETATION 1**********************************
Leads to a lot of questions, I know.
Was it okay then for Eve to have the knowledge of life/death/life(serpent knowledge(medicine woman knowledge), good and evil?
Eve the nurturer, would not likely use the knowledge to make weapons of war.
Why not Adam?
Adam would and did. He was not Elohim's man, Adam was YHWH's man.

The original sin, then, might have been that knowing meant only for the nurturant female of the species was given to the aggressive male...Women still are known for intuition...retaining, perhaps, the deep knowledge that was her birthright.
**********************OR INTERPRETATION 2*****************
There has long been speculation that Adam actually symbolized a tribe.
Perhaps Eve did also...gives the idea of the original Romeo & Juliet with a twist, huh?
boy was Adamian, girl was Evian...fell in love...she gave him knowledge of plants (fruit/tree/herb/medicine) that was taboo for an Adamian. Adam was banished, Eve followed.
The Adamians became the founders of the Hebrew race. The Evians stayed in Eden...
think on it and see.

[djmixon]

Eve, on the other hand is actually rewarded with two great gifts:
1. the ability to bear children,
2. the love for a man.
Both gifts had a downside, birth would be painful (without Eden's herbal plant magic)and the man she loved had been banished from Eden.
But how could anyone call these punishments when throughout all the rest of the Hebrew stories, marriage and children were the very gifts a woman would pray for?

I think the curse was to have great suffering with childbirth. . .not the childbirth itself. . .the sorrow of having ungrateful and rebellious children. . .the subjugation to the husband as well as desire when he may or may not be a gracious "master".

Further, the separation from the Trinity was a curse as well. . .they had cohabited freely and walked and talked in the Garden, but now that communication must be earned and worked for. . .

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd328.htm#009), Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd074.htm#002), and above every beast (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd049.htm#001) of the field; upon thy belly (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd052.htm#000) shalt thou go, and dust (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd109.htm#008) shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


3:15 And I will put enmity (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd121.htm#003) between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Specifically referring to the Christ and His victory over evil - See Isaiah


3:16 Unto 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.


3:17 And unto Adam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd007.htm#007) 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;


3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd174.htm#008) of the field;


3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd064.htm#006), till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd109.htm#008) thou art, and unto dust (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd109.htm#008) shalt thou return.

[Tobias]

Wow Phi, you sure put a feminist spin on the story of Genesis! ;)

:)

[Phi]

so how
I think the curse was to have great suffering with childbirth. . .not the childbirth itself. . .the sorrow of having ungrateful and rebellious children. . .the subjugation to the husband as well as desire when he may or may not be a gracious "master".

Further, the separation from the Trinity was a curse as well. . .they had cohabited freely and walked and talked in the Garden, but now that communication must be earned and worked for. . .

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd328.htm#009), Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd074.htm#002), and above every beast (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd049.htm#001) of the field; upon thy belly (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd052.htm#000) shalt thou go, and dust (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd109.htm#008) shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


3:15 And I will put enmity (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd121.htm#003) between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Specifically referring to the Christ and His victory over evil - See Isaiah


3:16 Unto 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.


3:17 And unto Adam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd007.htm#007) 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;


3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd174.htm#008) of the field;


3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd064.htm#006), till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd109.htm#008) thou art, and unto dust (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd109.htm#008) shalt thou return.
I know, DJ, this is the usual translation of the story for Christians. I don't get why you blued and highlighted the words you did, though. Even reading this version of the story rather than KJV, it still comes out the same to me and does in no wise negate the interpretations I gave above.
According to Christian theology, there were no births in Eden, so how could God multiply (or increase severalfold) the pain of something that had not previously existed? It is multiplied by being out of the garden where the pain-lessening herbals grew.
Where does it say Eve must leave? Eve must die? "To the woman he said" is not the same as "He punished the woman by saying."

Anyway, I am not trying to change your belief system. So I won't go on with further questions for you. Especially since you asked me nothing, but rather told me, and I hate to say it but it sounded an awful lot like preaching to me, your (and the majority of Christian theologians) convictions. I know this theology by heart. :)
I happen to think it may have been poorly explained. This one example of why.

[Phi]

Wow Phi, you sure put a feminist spin on the story of Genesis! ;)


:)Oh man how I hate the use of the word feminist.:shaker: Tis so often used in a perjorative way.
And as a catchword for men to say "this woman is slanting the facts." I am not.:awwman:
(If I related the story of Nammu and Innanna in the Sumerian tradition, and failed to remake them as males, would I be a feminist then?)

All I stated insofar as what is and is not said in the story is a fact. Period. That does not make it a feminist spin.

What was not said has forever been spun/read into the story by male historians, rabbis, priests, and preachers until no one actually reads the words anymore without seeing the male interpretations, additions, spin that are not there in the text)

My own interpretations of what was actually written may have a woman's perspective, as would be natural, since I am a woman. However,

Only with the first part...and it is a valid response to the horribly mysogynistic spin that has been the thousands of years tradition: that woman caused the fall...

But hey, didn't you even read the last interpretation?
I would assume the agricultural Evian tribe, ruled by Elohim, would have both genders in their tribe, as would the warrior Adamians, ruled by YHVH...

[djmixon]

I didn't mean it to come across harshly. . .the blued text came directly from teh site I cut and pasted from (Sacred Texts).

I know you aren't trying to convert me. . .I am not trying to convert you..
I found your discussion very nice and was just trying to share my thoughts on it. I just thought you had taken a bit of a left turn at Albequerque (see Bugs Bunny for details) :hehehe: .

NO offense was intended. . .it is late and I am suffering from insomnia, so I think I came across more harshly than I intended. . .

If I do - at any time - tell me and I will try to get better about it. . .

Blessings,
Donna

[Phi]

I didn't mean it to come across harshly. . .the blued text came directly from teh site I cut and pasted from (Sacred Texts).

I know you aren't trying to convert me. . .I am not trying to convert you..
I found your discussion very nice and was just trying to share my thoughts on it. I just thought you had taken a bit of a left turn at Albequerque (see Bugs Bunny for details) :hehehe: .

NO offense was intended. . .it is late and I am suffering from insomnia, so I think I came across more harshly than I intended. . .



Blessings,
Donna:kooky: That's okay, left turns at Albequerque are my specialty...and often lead to great places too! Jesua ben Joseph often "left-turned at Albequerque" too, according to the traditional interpretations of the stories/laws of his own day as per the then "official and acceptied" versions.
No harm done, sorry about the insomnia :)

[Romani Vixen]

I'm still not sure what I think of your take on the metaphor thing... I personally like to do that with religions... look at them from a completely different angle. Not saying that I'll believe it or not... but to explore.

I like this one the best... I'll have to paraphrase!

I read a story once about a woman called Eve. Her race was the predisessor to what we now call Humans. They looked much the same, but for a few differences. One of them was that the females would only have breasts when pregnant or breast feeding a baby. Much like a cat or dog.

Save for Eve. When she began to mature, she developed breasts. At first her family thought that she must be with child. but she wasn't. And she continued to develop into a very .... womanly... looking woman!

Soon, all the men were competing for her attention. All wanted to be her mate, as men are attracted for some reason to women who look pregnant.

But she was fickle. Before long, she coose who she thought was the most attractive male. Adam was a good hunter, and able to provide for her and her children well!

And so, Adam and Eve had many children, and it was Eve's mutated genes, that gave women the aparence that women do now.

++++

I like it. I'm sure that's *how* mature female humans developed perminant breasts. Tis the way of evolution. Though the names.... eh.... lol

[Romani Vixen]

:kooky: That's okay, left turns at Albequerque are my specialty...and often lead to great places too! Jesua ben Joseph often "left-turned at Albequerque" too, according to the traditional interpretations of the stories/laws of his own day as per the then "official and acceptied" versions.
No harm done, sorry about the insomnia :)
Who said insomnia was a bad thing....

oh yeah.... my teacher.... lol

[Ladyvi]

phi . interesting concept there dear.

there where also the other people that where not 'tribes' of god. you had the children of god. the children of men and a little blurb about the other people. a lot of things where carefully culled out during its translation back in king james day. books where omitted due to content and things where interpreted and translated in their way.

vanity to think you can change the word to fit their own limited plans. but if you look carefully the word is still there. going back to the greek and hebrew words help a lot and places a whole new meaning and light on the bible. it isnt what its been made out to be.

[Kadynas]

Very interesting! :D Makes you think! :thumbsup:

[Aine of the Fae]

Overall Phi, it's a very thought-provoking interpretation of a very controversial story. Goes along with what I've been saying all along too, it wasn't Eve's fault.

I believe Genesis, especially the early chapters, is a metaphorical tale and was not meant to be taken literally. The word Adam means, literally, man, as in mankind. Eve means woman, beginning. Adam and Eve were the first people, perhaps groups, or perhaps not, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that none of it is supposed to be taken literally. Taking it literally tends to cause you to lose the deeper spiritual meaning.

Man is fallen, whether through sin or through ignorance doesn't matter. Man is not perfect, they have been removed from the presence of perfection, and now must strive to get back to that perfection.

Jesus was an example of what that perfection is like manifested as a man, a personal savior, not necessarily a worldly savior. In fact isn't it the fundamentalist Christians who stress that you must personally accept Christ as your savior? It's not that he necessarily saves you, it's that he shows you the way.

Anyway, that's going a bit off topic...

[Brinclhof]

I have always held that the genesis creation story, like most creation myths, is just man kinds way of explaining things in nature it doesn't understand. A lot of the greek mythology is man kinds attempt at explaning a simple scientific function that people of that time did not understand. The big bang theory is the same thing. It is the scientific communities attempt at explaining something it doesn't understand.

The other thing that must be remembered when looking at Genesis is that it was a story told from generation to generation by an oral tradition before it was ever written down. When you tell a story, especially to children, you have to put things in terms that people can understand. A billion years lets say get shortened to a day.

Does anyone here really have any concept of how long a billion years is? But you know how long a day is....

[Phi]

phi . interesting concept there dear.

there where also the other people that where not 'tribes' of god. you had the children of god. the children of men and a little blurb about the other people. a lot of things where carefully culled out during its translation back in king james day. books where omitted due to content and things where interpreted and translated in their way.

vanity to think you can change the word to fit their own limited plans. but if you look carefully the word is still there. going back to the greek and hebrew words help a lot and places a whole new meaning and light on the bible. it isnt what its been made out to be.I agree, it was vanity...it was hubris of the worst sort...and caused so much to be lost.

Through Anthropological studies, we know that many aboriginal cultures have called themselves "the people." It is not as if these aboriginals do not know that others exist, they simply see themselves as the "real/true/chosen" people and any other tribes as lesser creatura.
Now, this being the case Aboriginal tribe A considers itself the real, while Aboriginal tribe B considers itself to be the real...each of their creation stories puts its own tribe as "the first/best/real/true/chosen" and all others as secondary/lesser.
It appears to be a rather widespread modus, anthropologically speaking.

[Tobias]

Oh man how I hate the use of the word feminist.:shaker: Tis so often used in a perjorative way.
And as a catchword for men to say "this woman is slanting the facts." I am not.:awwman:
(If I related the story of Nammu and Innanna in the Sumerian tradition, and failed to remake them as males, would I be a feminist then?)

All I stated insofar as what is and is not said in the story is a fact. Period. That does not make it a feminist spin.

What was not said has forever been spun/read into the story by male historians, rabbis, priests, and preachers until no one actually reads the words anymore without seeing the male interpretations, additions, spin that are not there in the text)

My own interpretations of what was actually written may have a woman's perspective, as would be natural, since I am a woman. However,

Only with the first part...and it is a valid response to the horribly mysogynistic spin that has been the thousands of years tradition: that woman caused the fall...

But hey, didn't you even read the last interpretation?
I would assume the agricultural Evian tribe, ruled by Elohim, would have both genders in their tribe, as would the warrior Adamians, ruled by YHVH...


Sorry Phi, I didn't know you took offence at the word "femenist". I was just comparing your version with the traditional one, somewhat in jest. :) Feel free to say whatever you like about Genesis, I personally don't beleive the story's true anymore.

For many years I searched for truth in Christianity. I considered the story in Genesis, and took it to heart the message that a life of perfection was lost due to somebody elses' mistake. So I figured my close relationship with the Divine would lead me back to that perfection, because Jesus was the "second Adam" and supposed to have reversed its effects -- but the pieces never would go back togeather. I was still cursed to work by the "sweat of my brow."

But I came to the realization that work was a way of life, and not a curse. My sons were born with much pain, and there was nothing I could do but stand there and hold my wife's hand.

I can see now that God did not have any other plan for man that "we" screwed up, but that He works just fine with the present system in place.

It is from my years of trying to make the story work that I have come to the opinion that the story of Genesis is neither an allegory nor the truth. Perhaps the story was fabricated from a couple being kicked out of their homeland, or the survivors of a civilization like Atlantis; but for me the story doesn't contain any spiritual truth. I can see that parts of the Bible are inspired and contain great spiritual truths that when applied to or lives give us an accurate picture of how the Divine works. The story of Eden is not one of those.

[Phi]

Hey! :wave: I haven't got it down how to separate quotes into orange text blocks yet so I just put my responses in blue type.
Overall Phi, it's a very thought-provoking interpretation of a very controversial story. Goes along with what I've been saying all along too, it wasn't Eve's fault.

I believe Genesis, especially the early chapters, is a metaphorical tale and was not meant to be taken literally. Just like the other metaphors from other cultures, like the Navajo or Hopi one of the tortoise, the people underground. In their traditional genesis (beginning) tales, their people are the first people too.
The word Adam means, literally, man, as in mankind. Actually means "red" doesn't it?(Race?)
Eve means woman, beginning. Eve means evening, as in the beginning of the day for the Hebrews...and as in the time of woman/the night/the moon
Adam and Eve were the first people,but only according to the Hebrew version of the beginning, see above...
perhaps groups, or perhaps not, but it doesn't really matter. Perhaps it doesn't perhaps it does...thinking through what a story actually says rather than accepting the spin of others with an agenda for power grabbing, might be very important
The point is that none of it is supposed to be taken literally. Taking it literally tends to cause you to lose the deeper spiritual meaning. Exactly, as does taking literally the spin put on it by the Hebrew high priests..

Man is fallen, whether through sin or through ignorance doesn't matter. I think that man is fallen into the lower and heavier vibration of matter

Man is not perfect, they have been removed from the presence of perfection, and now must strive to get back to that perfection. We are each here in the heavy world of matter for a purpose, and part of that purpose is usually to assist others...not just to attain our own perfection... I don't think we came from perfection over and over only to strive to return to it over and over...More is there... Jeshua tells you repeatedly that you are not here just for your own self but for the sakes of others...If you seek only for yourself, your own salvation/enlightenment it will elude you lifetime after lifetime...Only by helping others to achieve their enlightenment...(please note I said their enlightenment not anyone else's version of it...each has his/her own path and hitching a ride on someone else's wagon requires too little efffort and thought energy on one's part to raise the spirit/soul higher...)
does your spirit/soul rise higher toward the truth

Jesus was an example of what that perfection is like manifested as a man, a personal savior, not necessarily a worldly savior. Because I believe inreincarnation...Jeshua might be the savior of a person via his example/word...and also later come back reincarnate) as the literal Messiah of Israel...

In fact isn't it the fundamentalist Christians who stress that you must personally accept Christ as your savior?Yes they do, but in a way that tries to close the mind to any concept of the meanings of his teachings or of his native religion's (Hebrew) teachings other than what they proscribe, thus they give Jeshua as example, lure you in , and then cut you off from Jeshua...their own interpretations/concepts becoming in effect what they call salvation, rather than Jeshua and his words themselves...
It's not that he necessarily saves you, it's that he shows you the way. Indeed. But only if you follow him, his guidance and not the guidance of those whose hubris has led them to tell you what your understanding must be. Anyone who truly follows the way of Jeshua must follow his way. His way includes discerning, not blindly following. As he did in the world of Pharisee and Saducee...
:boquet:
Anyway, that's going a bit off topic...

[Ladyvi]

well the translations and interpretations originally was done by male. so of course it took a masculine turn.

i like phi's view on this

[Phi]

Sorry Phi, I didn't know you took offence at the word "femenist". That's okay,:hugz: at the least, you have gained the comprehension that it can be offensive, and why it can, from my post...and that is surely something you can use in your life, I guess.:bouncysmi I was just comparing your version with the traditional one, somewhat in jest. :) Feel free to say whatever you like about Genesis, I personally don't beleive the story's true anymore.

For many years I searched for truth in Christianity. I considered the story in Genesis, and took it to heart the message that a life of perfection was lost due to somebody elses' mistake. Heres's the meat of it(to me)...for each human Adam's mistake was hubris...Eve's mistake was to love Adam and accept his hubris as her own guidance, rather than finding her own through the sacred...The lesson of this Genesis is that each of us is both Adam and Eve...each of us continues to make these mistakes over and again...So I figured my close relationship with the Divine would lead me back to that perfection, because Jesus was the "second Adam" and supposed to have reversed its effects -- but the pieces never would go back togeather. I was/am? still cursed to work by the "sweat of my brow."And by the sweat of your mind...interesting that it is the sweat of the brow, not the armpit or back or any other body part...there is a symbolism here in this choice of word...

But I came to the realization that work was a way of life, and not a curse. My sons were born with much pain, and there was nothing I could do but stand there and hold my wife's hand. The pain of childbirth is overcome by the joy of new life, just as the pain of life is...a lesson here too

I can see now that God did not have any other plan for man that "we" screwed up, but that He works just fine with the present system in place.

It is from my years of trying to make the story work that I have come to the opinion that the story of Genesis is neither an allegory nor the truth. Perhaps the story was fabricated from a couple being kicked out of their homeland, or the survivors of a civilization like Atlantis; but for me the story doesn't contain any spiritual truth. I can see that parts of the Bible are inspired and contain great spiritual truths that when applied to or lives give us an accurate picture of how the Divine works. The story of Eden is not one of those.Reasearching the story of Eden gave me great truths, that clearly applied to my own life. But your path is not mine, and it may not be a part of your path to see or to need these truths. However, I do hope you at least enjoyed my attempt to open people's eyes to the words that are there and the words that we have been taught to see which are not there. My thinking is that we all need to mature enough to be spiritually able to read clearly for ourselves and not with blinders.

[Phi]

I have always held that the genesis creation story, like most creation myths, is just man kinds way of explaining things in nature it doesn't understand. A lot of the greek mythology is man kinds attempt at explaning a simple scientific function that people of that time did not understand. The big bang theory is the same thing. It is the scientific communities attempt at explaining something it doesn't understand.

The other thing that must be remembered when looking at Genesis is that it was a story told from generation to generation by an oral tradition before it was ever written down. When you tell a story, especially to children, you have to put things in terms that people can understand. A billion years lets say get shortened to a day.

Does anyone here really have any concept of how long a billion years is? But you know how long a day is....I agree! But just because Mama or Daddy told you a story in child's terms, doesn't mean the lesson should be forgotten or dismissed as you grow up, does it?
As you mature, you learn to understand the meaning in mature terms.
I especially agree with your astute observation that man has long made efforts to explain things in human terms, and that both genesis and big bang are among those efforts.
Yet, we are supposed to keep trying to understand things, I think...

[Phi]

Very interesting! :D Makes you think! :thumbsup:The whole point of it! We must begin to think, and discern!:hugz:

One thing to realize is that hatred of Hebrew stories and of Christianity is counterprodutive to anyone's path,
if only because this keeps us from seeing the values hidden within their stories.
It always amazes me when people research all others, and hate this one too much to try to get at the meat of it. Hating is to their detriment, and weighs the spirit anyway.
Many bad things happened because these stories were mis-used, mis-interpreted.
It doesn't make the aboriginals bad, and certainly no worse than other aboriginal tales...
I doubt that there ever has been a religion, followed without discernment by any group that has not caused horrors.
I am of the opinion that following other humans in spiritual things, jumping on their wagon, so to speak, rather than following the Divine as well as one can and committing great effort to connecting with it, is actually where the "bad" came from/comes from...:)

[Tobias]

However, I do hope you at least enjoyed my attempt to open people's eyes to the words that are there and the words that we have been taught to see which are not there.

It's great to hear somone else get something out of that story. I guess I'm still a bit hurt by all the time I spent trying to apply my understanding of it to my life. That and my Christian upbringing which told me beyond all doubt that the world was created in 6 days and that Evolution was a complete lie.

I run into people all the time on these Pagan sites who express so much anger at Christianity, and I wonder why. The religion's been pretty good to me. But if the resentment they feel is similar to how I feel about the first couple chapters of Genesis, I guess I can understand where they are coming from now.

My appologies for butting into this discussion with my own unresolved issues.

[equinox2]

phi wrote:

Have you ever looked closely at the story?
From what I read, Elohim never actually told Eve not to eat of the Knowledge tree.

It's clear from Genesis 3:2 that she had been told, because she repeated back the command to the talking snake when he asked her why she didn't eat from that tree. Here, read it for yourself: Genesis 3:


Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "


Remember that the books of the Bible were written long ago, for an audience back then, not today. In the ancient context, they may well have been thought to be a literal history. Maybe we can make them into an spiritually useful metaphor today, but we might be better off just making up our own useful metaphor – then we don’t have to worry about things like it being misogynist, etc.

Aine of the Fae talks a little about this in Post #109, here: http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=57443&page=11&pp=10

romani vixen wrote:

And so, Adam and Eve had many children, and it was Eve's mutated genes, that gave women the appearance that women do now.
++++
I like it. I'm sure that's *how* mature female humans developed perminant breasts. Tis the way of evolution. Though the names.... eh.... lol

Hey, that makes a lot of sense! There had to be a mutation for that somewhere back there, since women have permanent breasts and their primitive mammal ancestors apparently did not. Plus, it fits with the medical fact that most of a woman’s breast is fat tissue, not milk-producing tissue. Why? So there is always a breast there to see, so it will always attract men. That’s why small breasted women can breast feed just fine.

[Phi]

It's great to hear somone else get something out of that story. I guess I'm still a bit hurt by all the time I spent trying to apply my understanding of it to my life. That and my Christian upbringing which told me beyond all doubt that the world was created in 6 days and that Evolution was a complete lie.

I run into people all the time on these Pagan sites who express so much anger at Christianity, and I wonder why. The religion's been pretty good to me. But if the resentment they feel is similar to how I feel about the first couple chapters of Genesis, I guess I can understand where they are coming from now.

My appologies for butting into this discussion with my own unresolved issues.
No apology needed at all...On the contrary, Tobias, none of us can ever comment if commenting requires that we have absolutely no unresolved issues! Feel free to stay with us and comment as you will. Please do.

[Phi]

Equinox, :)

Since the orange blocks do not copy, i hope you don't mind my inserting, in violet, the KJV of pertinent text...First though we need to back up to when God gave the command regarding not eating of one tree...in Gen2, the command was given to Adam, and Adam alone

before Eve was created.
There is no mention that God told Adam to tell Eve not to eat of it.
There is no mention that God told Eve not to eat of it.
Yet Eve states

GEN3:3 But 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.

The only time we see God speaking of this is to say to Adam, pre-Eve,

GEN 2:16,17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But 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.
Nowhere does the script say that God said this to Eve. Nowhere did God say that touching the tree would cause death. It is not until the following verse, GEN2:18, that God decided to create Eve.

QUOTE=equinox2 It's clear from Genesis 3:2 that she had been told, because she repeated back the command to the talking snake when he asked her why she didn't eat from that tree. ]

[That Eve had been told about it is clear from the later text, but that the words had been changed from the original word to Adam is clear from her response that one could not even touch this tree or one would die.
Thus Eve did not repeat, verbatim, what God is stated to have said to Adam, indicating that she herself did not receive this directly from God, but from Adam.

Which may mean that Adam, without having been told to, told Eve that she could not even touch that tree, without God's expressed will, and committed hubris of the first order by speaking for God.
This is accepted even by Hebrew scholars in some ancient texts, if I recall earlier research, and is not only my opinion or my spin on it.
That Adam apparently changed and added to what was a sacred command, then, may have been the real "Original sin."




Remember that the books of the Bible were written long ago, for an audience back then, not today.All of history was written for an audience back then, and all of moral thought and guidance too, but it would be unnessary to write it unless it was something to keep and continue to study for the sake of enlightenment. The same can be said of all ancient texts,
all texts eventually become ancient texts if they are kept. So should we all cease to read all texts that were not written recently? I thnk not, for then we put ourselves in a position of having to rely on another's point of view.In the ancient context, they may well have been thought to be a literal history. Maybe we can make them into an spiritually useful metaphor today, but we might be better off just making up our own useful metaphorWe might also be better off to study deeply and try to comprehend...what is there, the better to be able to make new analogies and metaphors... – then we don’t have to worry about things like it being misogynist, The worry about mysogynistic interpretations would not matter, except that this has been the prevailing moral code base in the Western world for thousands of years and therefore permeates the whole of western ideaology.etc.

As a culture, and as individuals in Western culture, it is important to move beyond it not simply by trying to ignore it but rather diagnostically, finding out what started the disease so that the culture and ourselves within the culture can be cured and healed.

[Tobias]

No apology needed at all...On the contrary, Tobias, none of us can ever comment if commenting requires that we have absolutely no unresolved issues! Feel free to stay with us and comment as you will. Please do.

Thankyou Phi.

I am learning from this discussion. For starters, I didn't know before that I had so many unresolved issues with Genesis!


As a culture, and as individuals in Western culture, it is important to move beyond it not simply by trying to ignore it but rather diagnostically, finding out what started the disease so that the culture and ourselves within the culture can be cured and healed.

I like your logic. :)

[Phi]

PS: would somebody tell me how to get those nice orange blocks to separate so they can be commented on, without having to resort to the whole rainbow...:bigblue: Maybe an IM might be best so as not to disrupt anyone's train of thought here...

[Brinclhof]

I agree! But just because Mama or Daddy told you a story in child's terms, doesn't mean the lesson should be forgotten or dismissed as you grow up, does it?
As you mature, you learn to understand the meaning in mature terms.
I especially agree with your astute observation that man has long made efforts to explain things in human terms, and that both genesis and big bang are among those efforts.
Yet, we are supposed to keep trying to understand things, I think...

I agree. I was just stating my belief on why you can't take that story literally as it appears in the bible.

I love to think about these things. I wish I could find a paper I wrote in college where I wrote the Big Bang theory out as a creation myth. I took a mythology class and we studied numerous creation myths including Genesis.

"According to myth the earth was created in six days. Now watch out here comes Genesis we'll do it for you in six minutes."
-Deforest Kelley as Dr. McCoy in Star Trek II the Wrath of Kahn.

[Phi]

RomaniVixen:

I haven't meant to ignore your post, and found the story delightful! :)

[Ladyvi]

im with lilith and her like. a much grossly overlooked part of the torah that got left out of the bible.. when god made adam . he made lilith. after adam and lilith didnt get along. god created eve from adam and placed her to him for him.

there is a difference between created and made.

[equinox2]

Phi-

Oh, Ok. I thought you were saying that Eve hadn't been told by anyone. I think we both see it as consistent with the story that god told Adam, and then Adam told Eve.

It is not clear that Adam changed the command a bit when he told Eve, or if the writer of Genesis was just a little sloppy in having his command a little different in one place than the other. I guess it could be either.

Thanks so much for the detailed and interesting reply. I agree with many of the ideas in it - you have interesting thoughts! P.S. to get an orange box, just select the text you want and then hit the little picture of a printed page on the right side just above your text on the "reply" page.

[Phi]

im with lilith and her like. a much grossly overlooked part of the torah that got left out of the bible.. when god made adam . he made lilith. after adam and lilith didnt get along. god created eve from adam and placed her to him for him.

there is a difference between created and made.Yes, I studied her too, as much as can be gleaned from what has not been overlooked and lost.
Perhaps, God made Lillith in Sumeria? For that is where her story starts in ancient texts, I do believe...
There are actually more definitions for "made" than for "created" while each is listed as first synonym for the other...
What definitions for this making and creating do you hold?

[Ladyvi]

the catholic church have placed a huge negative light on lilith. calling her a witch and evil person. thing is she has or had her job to do just as necessary as anyone elses. it is told that she convorts with demons and produced demonic children. ~ makes a face ~ .. i guess the churches way of keeping women in their marriage and that divorcing is an evil thing thus putting adam in a better light for 'divorcing' lilith for being evil and a witch. ~ shruggs~

a lot of todays perception that has become mainstream reality have been long standing propaganda of the church to maintain control of the people.

[Phi]

the catholic church have placed a huge negative light on lilith. calling her a witch and evil person. thing is she has or had her job to do just as necessary as anyone elses. it is told that she convorts with demons and produced demonic children. ~ makes a face ~ .. i guess the churches way of keeping women in their marriage and that divorcing is an evil thing thus putting adam in a better light for 'divorcing' lilith for being evil and a witch. ~ shruggs~

a lot of todays perception that has become mainstream reality have been long standing propaganda of the church to maintain control of the people.If Lillith was indeed a creature from ancient Sumeria, then naturally the "new" religion/tribe/authority might demonize her, as did the Hebrews, long before the Catholics.
But Innanna of the Sumerian pantheon also wanted Lillith out of her garden, giving the idea that perhaps Lillith actually predates both Sumerian and Hebrew theologies, for when the new culture comes in the old is often demonized...

If you want, I can send PM you a lot of my feelings/thoughts/regarding Lillith...

[Romani Vixen]

RomaniVixen:

I haven't meant to ignore your post, and found the story delightful! :)
Why thank you! :hahugh:

Do note, I can't take credit for the story. I read it a few years ago, and have noooo clue where I read it!!!

[Romani Vixen]

im with lilith and her like. a much grossly overlooked part of the torah that got left out of the bible.. when god made adam . he made lilith. after adam and lilith didnt get along. god created eve from adam and placed her to him for him.

there is a difference between created and made.
See!!!! God performed the first divorce!!!!

lol

[Phi]

See!!!! God performed the first divorce!!!!

lol Or created the first bigamist...and the first feminist8O

[Ladyvi]

inanna was also d'anu of the celts. d'anu is a grandaughter of the great anu. that predates summeria and hebrew culture. d'anu is descended from the shining ones and concidering that anu and the anunnaki. it isnt hard to see how they got the name ' the shining ones'