Freethought & Rationalism Archive

zavijava · 05-28-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by firebug

Genesis 2:16-17

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die."

Now we know this is a lie - Adam and Eve didn't die after eating the apple or touching the tree. So, if according to the book, god lies, then how do we know the rest of it is truth?

Are Adam and Eve still alive then?

Do you have evidence they died?

zavijava · 05-28-2008, 08:28 PM

I don't think Adam & Eve should be considered as having been real people.

Angra Mainyu · 05-28-2008, 08:52 PM

Other versions of the Bible tell the story differently.
For instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by New American Bible

The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden, except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

Quote:

Originally Posted by New International Version

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Then again, most versions in English I checked, say that they'll that on that day.

There's also different versions of the story in Spanish, though in the case of Spanish, most of the ones I checked don't say they'll die on that day.

PhilosopherJay · 05-28-2008, 09:36 PM

Hi Equinox,

I agree that this is a guess.

But note this (From Iranian Views of Origins in Connection with Similar Babylonian beliefs, Albert J. Carnoy, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 36, (1916), pp. 300-320 ):

Quote:

With the production of mankind is connected the story of an incest. Yama and Yami,18 the first human beings, according to the Indians, after some hesitation had intercourse and became the ancestors of the human race. To the Vedic Yama-Yami twins, corresponds in Persia the couple Yima-Yimak. Yimak is a sister of Yima. There is some renembrance of a sexual perversion in Yimak inasmuch as she has intercourse with demons, but the real story has been transferred to the Zoroastrian human twins, Mashya and Mashyoi. They also have a long hesitation before they agree to have sexual intercourse. Only after fifty years and when they had become hateful to Mazdah did they remember their duty and after nine months begot children.

Stories of irregular sexual intercourse and especially of incest have arisen in Iran from conditions special to the first man or the first human pair. Either the marriage that generates mankind takes place between brother and sister (Yama-Yami) or between father and daughter. The relationship of the primeval female to the primeval male of course varies according to the mythical conceptions in which they are involved and is often ambiguous. The Sumerians, for instance, who admit that the first human child results from a union between a god and a goddess, represent the mother-deity (Nin-Ella) both as a wife and as a daughter of Enki. Mythical or even mystical conceptions lead to these representations. The Iranians, for instance, see in Armaiti, 'piety, wisdom,' a daughter of Ahura Mazdah. 'Mazdah is the father of the active Vohu Manah, whereas his daughter is Armaiti (good mind, wisdom, piety) with her excellent works' (Ys. 45. 4). But often also Armaiti is the mother. So, e. g., in Yt. 17. 16 it is said of Ashi, 'recompense of the faithful,': 'Thy Father is Ahura Mazdah, the greatest and the best of all Yazatas. Thy mother is Holy Armaiti. Thy brother is Sraosha (Discipline), the good, faithful to Asha, and the high and powerful Rashnu (Law, Right), as well as Mithra (god of Justice) . . . Thy sister is the Mazdean religion.' Armaiti here is practically a wife to Ormazd and is, in fact, called so in Visp. 3. 4, where she is mentioned with Religious Activity and Decision as Ormazd's wife (ghend). The symbolic meaning of those generations is clear enough, but that the people were conscious of some abnormality in them is shown by a passage quoted by West (SBE. 18. 415, App.): Spendarmat is said to be a female. She was sitting by the side of Auhrmazd and she had laid a hand on his neck and Zarthusht asked Auhrmazd about it, thus: 'Who is this that sits beside thee and thou wouldst be such a friend to her and she also would be such a friend to thee? Thou who art Auhrmazd turnest not thy eyes away from her and she not from thee. Thou who art Auhrmazd dost not release her from thy hand, and she does not release thee from her hand.' And Auhrmazd said: 'This is Spendarmat who is my daughter, the house mistress of my Heaven and mother of the creatures.' The fact is invoked in that book as a justification of khvetukchdah or the next-of-kin (even incestuous) marriage as was recommended by late Mazdeism, probably under the influence of customs prevalent in kingly and aristocratic families.

Since generally, in these stories, it is father-daughter incest that leads to the evil human race, it is interesting that we appear to have a case of Mother-son incest in the Adam-Eve story. This matches the women's-uncontrolled-sexuality-as-the-cause-of-trouble motif that we find in the Lot story.

We can thus propose a three stage development to the story:

1. Father/God-daughter incest leads to human race:
2. An inversion of the original story so that Mother-son incest leads to the human race. The Father/God incest element is censored by turning the father/God into a creator/sculptor God.
3. The incestuous elements are censored, by having the woman turned into another puppet/idol from an unnecessary part of the male puppet/idol.

Note also the reversal of creation mode -- in reality, men made idols/Gods from clay. In the story it is the god who makes man from clay.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Jay-

While I agree with many of your premises, I think a specific reworking like you have is far beyond what evidence we have. So, OK, maybe, but the incest story remains in the category of "guess" in my book.

Warmly-

Equinox

sschlichter · 05-29-2008, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zavijava

I don't think Adam & Eve should be considered as having been real people.

why not?

gregor · 05-29-2008, 06:30 AM

While the OP is unnecessarily combative in attributing a "lie" in a morality fable, I wonder if Mr. Schlicter would be willing to start a new thread deconstructing the DH. Feel free to start with the sticky above and defend mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as opposed to what is argued through the DH.

Amaleq13 · 05-29-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

why not?

Snakes can't talk and never have been able to do so.

And don't try to retroject the much later Christian "Satan" into the story. The snake is clearly and explicitly described as being nothing more than one of the animals. Just the most "subtil". That feature indicates it is an ancient fable that should no more be taken literally than any of Aesop's.

Headache · 05-29-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by zavijava

I don't think Adam & Eve should be considered as having been real people.

why not?

Because there were no two first human beings. That is not how nature works and there is ample evidence for humans evolving from other species, so unless you claim science is wrong and the bible is correct, word for word, you have to explain why you believe they are.

sschlichter · 05-29-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

why not?

Snakes can't talk and never have been able to do so.

And don't try to retroject the much later Christian "Satan" into the story. The snake is clearly and explicitly described as being nothing more than one of the animals. Just the most "subtil". That feature indicates it is an ancient fable that should no more be taken literally than any of Aesop's.

Is it ok if I 'retroject' a much earlier 'Adversary' into the story?

~Steve

Equinox · 05-29-2008, 11:22 AM

Steve, if you have reason to think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (and existed), you may want to start a thread to discuss that. First, it may be useful to read some other threads on this.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=214327

Quote:

Archeologists have arrived at a consensus that the Exodus and the Conquest had never happened…

on http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=215752

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=221556

and a very good summary here:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226169

As with the other topics I’ve suggested a thread on, it may be useful to learn the evidence on both sides. Without that you’ll appear both ignorant and naïve. In all of these that we’ve discussed (GoL, P52, Moses, a literal Adam & Eve, talking animals, etc,) it would seem that if you are interested in discussing the evidence point by point, a separate thread would be the way to do that.

Also, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the idea that God did lie in Genesis 2:17, but that this was considered morally fine, since, after all, he’s God (my post, #36).

Have a nice day-

Equinox

P.S. Philosopher Jay. OK – thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2008, 08:28 PM	#52
zavijava Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Washington DC Posts: 350	I don't think Adam & Eve should be considered as having been real people.

05-29-2008, 06:30 AM	#56
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	While the OP is unnecessarily combative in attributing a "lie" in a morality fable, I wonder if Mr. Schlicter would be willing to start a new thread deconstructing the DH. Feel free to start with the sticky above and defend mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as opposed to what is argued through the DH.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.