Julio

That's weird.
Jehovah spoke to him words he could not understand?
That's stretching the fable too far.

GakuseiDon

Hi Julio, I just responded to a similar thread on RD.net. Not sure if you were the person who raised it, but my 2 cents: It's something to do with nakedness:

Gen 3:6 ... She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Notice that they both suddenly realized that they were naked as soon as they ate the fruit. So the first thing they do after eating the fruit is make clothes. Then God comes along:

Gen 3:9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"
Gen 3:10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
Gen 3:11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?"

Here God concludes straight away that they had eaten of the fruit. Why? Because they were ashamed of their nakedness. So "their eyes being opened" is associated with shame. Then take into consideration the following verses:

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed

Gen 2:17 "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."

Gen 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
Gen 3:5 "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."

Gen 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."

I've underlined the common themes here: "eyes being opened", "knowing good and evil", and knowing the shame of nakedness. God sees the opening of eyes -- to know good and evil -- as synonymous with the shame of realization of nakedness. The snake takes a more literal view, and thereby deceives the woman (why else would she say the serpent deceived her?)

So the death being talked about is the death of innocence. Innocence died on the day that they ate of the fruit. It's a nice little morality tale.

Julio

Yes, it a little nonsensical fable, converted into a sacred text from which unscrupulous preachers throw at you a threatening sermon making you guilty of Jehovah's misdemeanours!!
And on top of it, the INNOCENT hearer still has to PAY with his cash for the emotional abuse!!!
Chili's version is, so far the better of the two.
But also extremely weird.
I believe there are several other personal & private interpretations of the epic, which the most absurd!

Chili

Yes but there is also literary censorship that goes along with it to prevent unscrupolous preachers from milking the lay people and perhaps sending them to war to kill people over it.

My interpretation is not better and exactly the same but if your do not want to see it I am just not interested in rubbing your nose in your own mire.

It is also true that other explanations exist that are concocted by those same preachers and are tied together with other warped passages upon which they soar through midheaven from where they proclaim salvation to the innocent down below (Rev.14:6-12). Here they must specifically ignore verse 13 that really tells about their error in which they [sooner or later] will crash at the foot of the cross [once they quit burning their daily bible passages] and there sing patient endurance songs until they die nonetheless.

Chili

Nice, but note that Lord God called the man and he answered from behind his mask (persona) to show this division of mind. This then is how Adam was created outside the human skull as presented by Micheal Angelo "The Creation of Adam" that is plastered on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam

Please note that Adam is not inside the human skull which is the backdrop of the scene itself.

DCHindley

Chili,

The more I read your posts, the more I realize that you have worked out your own fairly elaborate gnostic-like understanding of the world we know.

Not too bad for a Dutchperson.

DCH

Chili

I do not see it as a morality tale but simply the fact of becoming a rational agent now with a mind of his own. It is upon this 'slate' that we create an ego identity behind which we can hide now as hu-man before God (hu- is from humi- = earthly). Therefore it was Lord God who spoke to man's consciousness in evidence that man was naked only as animal man that so created our conscience in violation of the first "thou shalt not" that later became known as the Original Sin . . . which is the best thing that ever happended to man and still is.

As casual reader would I say that evil is not opposite to good at this time because the concept evil was not created until the laws were given to Moses and further that both good and evil are a liability in our return journey back to Eden when our moral goodness is also a fithy rag (from "get thee behind me satan").

Chili

Thank you DCH, 'this as they say: "you can always tell a Duthman but you can't tell him much."

DCHindley

Maybe, but I learned much from Professor Schnitzel on my Grampa Roy's record player in Allentown.

DCH