Amos

Short version: man-and-woman (TOL) still as androgyne consumed from the conscious mind (TOK) and this is what created the ego identity that is referred to with Adam (from a-dam as in the violation or consumation of a forbidden fruit here called 'obstacle' or 'dam' and hence the term Adamic or original sin ).

Man was the "created" image of God and was "formed" in Gen.2. Woman was taken from man to be the womb-of-man after which man is procreated (flesh of my flesh an bone of my bones) but remained without an identity of her own because she was never created to be formed. So now we have two identities in one body who are called "man" and "woman" with woman being the blueprint of man. The serpent represents the void of woman (without an identity of her own) and she (it's a she!) postulated that their eyes would be opened when data can be isolated and absorbed. She' right about this and we love to do that around here. I think so. The woman is the "parthenocarpic" (is that a word?) resident of our subjective mind (the TOL) and saw that the conscious mind (TOK) was good to gain power, wealth and beauty because its fruit has this objective appeal to it, doesn't it?

We should be glad she ate it and I think it is a lovely story.

Amos

That's OK Ellis, you're a 'good sport' but if you don't want to see it I'll just quit banging my head against the wall because you don't see it.

One more time, "man" is man and "Adam" is the ego or persona of man. It is wrong to say "man or Adam."

Doctor X

It is indeed ironic when one who is apparently eating some of the more illicit mushrooms whilst pontificating on a text attempts to chastize others for reading comprehension.

To return to the opening post, indeed, the authors are not interested in a deity--nor did they expect one--to be an "example" for people to follow. For them, a god doing evil, behaving badly, and all of that, is not a contradiction.

One of the myths that underlies the Biblical creation myths is a Summerian story where Enki--a god of water and wisdom--actually eats the plants created in the "Eden" of the story--located in the same place as the Biblical Eden, incidentally. Why does he do this? He is greedy, he is selfish. The "mother-earth" goddess who creates these plants--long name I cannot remember off the top of my head--curses him to death and leaves.

So, Enki become sick in eight organs. It is only from the pleas of the other gods, that the "mother-earth" goddess comes back to heal him. As Enki names each system that is failing, she creates a goddess to heal him. Here is something interesting: when he claims his rib hurts--ti--she creates a Nin-ti or a "woman of the rib" which is also read as a "woman who gives life." This is a significant pun.

This is the same meaning of "Eve"--according to Kramer, meaning a woman who gives life. Hebrew, then, retains part of the pun, but "rib" is not related. However, notice that in one creation story she is fashioned from a rib.

Fun stuff.

--J.D.

Reference:

Kramer S. History Begins at Sumer
--J.D.

Amlodhi

Sorry to have to say so Amos, but this is completely ludicrous, and hence, I can't let it stand for credulous lurkers to absorb. For starters, the Torah was written in Hebrew, not English, and the term "adam" has no connection to any connotation of the English term "obstacle" or "dam".

Neither does the term "fruit", which in the Hebrew is פְרִי and literally translated means "bough", (fig.) fruit.

IMHO, you should read the above post by Doctor X and begin investigating some of the actual truth of these matters instead of wasting your time on these unconstrained flights of fancy.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Doctor X

Amlodhi:

Thanks for the endorsement. I suppose I should give a proper link to the reference:

History Begins at Sumer.

This is a more update version, methinks. I have the older paperback which has a cover render'd by Edward Gorey . . . so there!

--J.D.

Amlodhi

Hello Doctor X,

And a good reference it is.

For those who might be interested, the following references, which I did not see on the recommended reading list, can also be useful:

"Mythology among the Hebrews and its Historical Development", Ignaz Goldziher, Ph.D., Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., New York, 1967.

"Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis", Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Greenwich House, New York, 1983.

"Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament", (a comparative study with chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's "Folklore in the Old Testament"), 2 vol., Theodor H. Gaster, Gloucester, Mass., 1981.

And as I may have mentioned once before, a book that I consider a "must read":

"Hamlet's Mill", (An essay investigating the origins of human knowledge and its transmission through myth), Giorgio De Santillana & Hertha Von Dechend, David R. Godine Pub. 1969.

[Aside to Amos: You, especially, should read "Hamlet's Mill", it will speak to you.]

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amos

Oh, please don't be sorry on account of me Amlodhi. I love dancing throught these passages and would never want to become so attached to the prescribed meaning of words that I would lose my freedom to 'play' with them (some would call this freethinking). The fact is that if I was to listen to Doctor X I would soon be 'just' another Doctor X and I think that there is too many dictionary doctors already.

We chose words to say something and the Hebrew word for Adam could very well be descriptive of man's 'earthly' nature in some obscured way and if it is not let me suggest that it should be because Adam is the name given to the second 'not-so-divine' identity of man -- since man was created in the divine image of God.

The fruit can very well be a bough if it is a metaphor. Who cares, really, except that an apple has more appeal to it nowadays or else maybe they did not have apples in those days. It can also be argued that a bough is more like its 'first fruit' since one might wonder how the pristine apple tree came to bear such nice apples even with their eyes still closed.

So my argument still stands but thank you for your comments.

Amos

Thanks, Amlodhi and I will but are you not afraid that I will criticize it?

Doctor X

Excellent suggestions Amlodhi. I am sure you recognize that the virtue of a dictionary is that it helps one use words properly. Solves a great deal of confusion. Of course, one cannot help those who refuse to learn.

--J.D.

premjan

Amos, you are lost in the maze of meanings. For any given set of words there are a large number of possible meanings. The true one depends on history and close analysis.