Tommy

Bold words indeed! Do you have any sources refuting my critique of the interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 in the OP?

Tommy

Related thought: if God's judgment was that man should work the land why was he so disappointed when Cain offered him the fruits of such labour?

outhouse

it wasnt gods judgement


ancient Israelites wrote that god favored meat sacrifices over agriculture.


this allegory, has roots that go back to differences between nomadic herders VS the evil of city life associated with the development of agriculture.

almost like Lotts fable

semiopen

I'm in total agreement with your OP statement

Allow me to make a bold corollary - there is no Christian interpretation of anything in the Old Testament that is superior to the Jewish interpretation.

Perhaps an exception is when Yoshke told the Pharisees to lighten up a little bit, but that was before Christianity started.

sotto voce

Surely, if they are not the same (and surely, they should be), one of them must be actually defective, if significantly different. Or are there two (or more) discrete, independent, valid intentions of the deity?

Let us suppose, as may seem sensible, that the deity of Genesis had only one intention. There is an interpretation of Gen 2 and 3 in post #3. Now is it Jewish, Christian, or both? It claims exegesis 'according to Genesis, and the rest of the Bible'; iow, that it is hermeneutic. Now the deliberate intention was that 'the Bible' could refer to either the Hebrew canon, or the Graeco-Hebrew canon. Now it is of course acknowledged that 'Jews' and 'Christians' disagree about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. But can there be discerned any point of necessary disagreement between these parties in this interpretation of Gen 2 and 3? I rather think that there cannot.

semiopen

I was thinking of examples like Isaiah 7:14 where some Christians claim that almah means virgin as in Yoshke's mom, in addition to probably all the other Yoshke prophecies.

Re. the actual verses under discussion

These are two different stories, that probably don't mean shit.

Once you start with exegesis, it's easy to leave the actual meaning of the text behind - it's not like what you are saying is wrong.

Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin

If we contrast these two views, the Jewish opinion is consistent with the concept that the story doesn't mean shit. If nothing else, this is simple and therefore superior to the other view.

outhouse

both defective

both invalid



christians jack it up reading literally

jews believe the exodus and moses, jacked I tell you lol

sotto voce

Off topic (and completely misleading).

We may now suppose that the best that Judaism can do is oppose only obviously pseudo-Christian dogma, and that the premise of this question:

Doesn't the plain word interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 seem to favour the Jewish rather than Christian outlook?

is entirely unfounded.

outhouse

exactly


someone is reading way to much into allegory, that is a compilation of early collections centuries a part and redacted so much the original authors wouldnt recognize it

Tommy

What is the basis for this supposition? Jews wrote the pentateuch and were reading it and interpreting it long before Xians. A plain reading of the Eden narrative favours the Jewish position.