jakejonesiv

Hi all,

Great thread.

Julian raises some very interesting questions. In fact, the Genesis story seems to be filled with puzzles. The story seems to be polytheistic, ""Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" Gen 1:26. The word for God, Elohim is itself plural. A thin veneer of monotheism has been laid across the polytheistic original, resulting in a confusion of the events. (Now, there is no doubt any number of traditionalists that will argue that the "Our" in 1:26 is the Trinty :rolling: and that the plural of Elohim is the plural of majesty.)

According to Genesis man originally existed without a moral sense, the knowledge between right and wrong; in other words as an animal.

Now, why was mankind created? What was there purpose? Genesis 2:5 gives it away. According to the myth, man was to be a slave. "and there was not a man to till the ground." So man was created to toil for the gods. This way the gods could go "strolling in the garden in the breeze of the day." Sounds pretty lesurely dosn't it?

The Elohim created mankind in their own physical image (Gen 1:27). But the Elohim did not want their creation to advance to equality with their creators. Gen 3:5. Mankind was forever to be workers, tilling the garden for the benifit of the gods, naked, not knowing the difference between good and evil, because if they did they woiuld know they were getting the short end of the stick.

But the Serpent came speaking Truth! The Elohim had said, you shall die, Gen 2:17. But the Serpent said, you will not die. Gen 3:4. So they ate and did not die! Gen 3:6-7. They ate and became as the Elohim! Gen 3:5.

So mankind became as the Elohim, knowing good and evil. They also realized they were naked and subservient. Gen 2:7-10. This gaining of knowledge is a good thing, not a bad thing. We may assume that the Elohim wore clothes, so the humans likewise fashioned clothes for themselves, as best they could.

Then the Elohim came walking in the evening (Gen. 3:8), they were physical beings not spirits. And they had to call for Adam, because he was hiding. Gen 3:9. They
were not "omnicent!".

And it was only after they saw the crude clothes that had been fashioned did the Elohim know. And the evil Elohim were angry at their slaves the Humans, and at the Couragous Serpent! So out of jealousy, they cursed the Serpent (Gen 3:14), they cursed women (Gen 3:16), and they cursed men (Gen 3:17).


One possible explanation is that the myths of Genesis are derived from earlier Sumerian muths. The Sumerians identified "the first" serpent as Enki.

It is curious the Genesis myth that one minute "God" was
condemning his "creation" and the next minute He was protecting his creation. That God cursed Cain, and then put a seal of protection on him, etc. In fact, the stories in Genesis are almost unintelligible unless it is supposed that brothers Enki (the Serpent) and Enlil (Yahweh) are competing for the human race. The biblical account of
the story of Adam and Eve was obscured with the condensing of many gods into one "God," when in fact, there were two major "gods" here, "Enlil/Yahweh" and "Enki/The Serpent."

The competition between the brothers, Enlil and Enki, continues in the story of the deluge. Enlil decides to destory mankind, but Enki (makind's protector) saves them by giving instructions to build the ark (Atrahasis Epic).

The Ophites gave the Genesis story special importance.
According to the Ophites, the serpent of Eden can have various significances; in Genesis it represents Wisdom (Sophia). Spirits were attracted by the Demiurge and were allured in entering the physical forms by which they fell into the slumber from the flesh.

The highest God sent the Serpent to awaken the captured spirits, the Serpent of Wisdom explained the truth which their bodies and spirits were deformations made by Archons, and which they were really beings
of spirit of another kingdom. This is recorded in the mythology as the eating of the Tree of the Gnosis of Good and Evil. When the archons discovered this it was great fury, and the pain and suffering inflicted on the human beings. Thus the heavenly Serpent must return as Redeemer. (See also Testimony of Truth).

The author of the Gospel of John goes on to stress such the Redeemer will ascend again. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up" (John 3:15, cf Numbers 21:6-9). "Even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." According to Matt 4:5, Jesus had been lifted up before. How did the devil take Jesus up to the pinnacle? Can we say, "Jesus the serpent-rider"? Indeed, even as the Sumerian prototypes Enki and Enlil are brothers, Jesus and Satan are twins, the morning stars.

Jake Jones

Buster Daily

All it says is that if I'm trying to sell an mighty and powerful god that is supposed to have created the universe and is capable of performing miracles to a bunch of polytheists, I need to explain why A) they personally never see miracles and B) how come not everyone else is exclusively worshipping this god that performs such amazing feats.

The answer is simple. God used to perform miracles all the time but it turns out that humans that see miracles still don't believe...or they believe but are not obedient. Illustration after illustration is given that miracles don't successfully cause obedience. The authors make such a big deal out of pointing this out precisely because it is so counterintuitive.

In the real world, I hope we realize that real miracles WOULD probably result in a lot of Yahweh followers but it's easier to sell an erroneous view of human nature than it is to produce real miracles.

Buster Daily

This is the simplist and most obvious explanation.

I think it's clear that the author(s) of Genesis probably weren't the author(s) of the original myth whose original purpose might have been to explain, among other things, why snakes crawled on their bellies and why women were "obviously" cursed as compared to men in a fun and entertaining way. When you shoehorn it into a larger framework of moral lessons and obedience to some god (now identified as Yahweh or El) the magic apple becomes the original sin and creates the contradiction.

Of course, I can't prove any of this. It would be cool if someone turned up some 3000+ year old cuneiform tablets with a Mesopotamian myth of a couple and a snake in a garden with a magic tree.

nygreenguy

Well, it is known that Jesus IS A god, and also a creator. It was him and God who created everything.



Well,the passage in context was speaking of WHY nothing was growing. And it says because it hasnt rained and man isnt there to till. This implies it takes rain and the care of mankind for these plants to grow. IT does NOT imply we are here to CULTIVATE. Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.


Yes, they didnt die right then and there, but were then cursed with death.



You presume because god asked questions he was not omnicient? How ofter do parents ask childen questions to which they already knew the answer to? It is faulty logic to assume god didnt know merly because he asked questions.

intresting as i believe this is a mormon belief as well.

Buster Daily

My OT has some Joshuas and some Jeshuas. Is that who you mean? I re-read the creation story a couple of times and I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps some Jewish scholars can help me find Jesus' part in the creation of the world.

Your "him and God" line reminded me that I always wanted to submit a funniest home videos tape of someone trying to teach the concept of the trinity to a bunch of kids. I've witnessed this first hand and it's quite comical. Kids aren't usually bright enough to pretend they understand and the adults explaining it usually aren't accustomed to being told by a child that something so widely accepted is obviously illogical. I have witnessed similar things with a mentally challenged individual several years back who attended the same Sunday school class that I did. I wondered at the time why the dumbest guy in the room was the only one claiming that the explanation didn't make sense.

jakejonesiv

I will agree that much later, the myth grows to include Jesus for some groups. But just to be clear, I don't think any of this really happened. It is a myth, but many a truth has been told there-in.

That quote is from the New World Translation. First Jesus was "a God" and then Jehovah instead of Yahweh. Are you a Jehovah's Witness? (Not that it matters ). The JW's are the Ebionites of the modern day.


It was a lie.
" ...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 2:17. (Please spare me the 1 day = 1 thousand years apology, I am not buying it ).

If these alleged being(s) were omnicient, they would have known that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit before hand.
It is faulty logic to ascribe omniscience to being(s) that are showing nothing of the sort in this tale. You are importing later theology into the context.

Yes, it is.

Jake Jones IV

fr0sty

Jake, I truely enjoyed the way you tell this story. I enjoyed it as much as I do the Norse Myths. Can you recommend any books that tell all the "back story" of Genesis? I'm not looking for hard core scholarly works, but one that had some references would be ideal.

Does such a book(s) exist?

Buster Daily

But most of the verbs used in conjunction with Elohim are singular. I've seen this debated ad nauseum. The consensus among the experts (my judgement) seems to be that the usage of Elohim in most cases is to mean singular. This begs the question of why the authors didn't just say El. Clearly it's three gods who are actually one god who is actually three gods. Plural noun. Singular verb. It makes perfect sense.

mdarus

"Wrong" began to "exist" when God gave the command not to eat. It was defined. It became a possible action.
I don't know where you find that Adam was incapable of sin. He was clearly capable of disobeying the command.
At least Adam had the knowlege of the command not to eat of the Tree. That issue defined morality for Adam. He certainly had the choice. We don't know if passed the information to Eve, but there is a hint he witnessed her conversation anyway. The author presents a consistant view of simplified morality.
The author of a story is permitted to make his own rules. If it is a fable, as readers we need to step into the author's world to make sense of it.
I say he knew that violating the comand was wrong. I think the author would agree. I also think that additional knowledge about morality obtained from the tree is consistant with the author's points. I don't think the story can be dismissed as internaly inconsistent.

If you conclude that God lied because Adam and Eve did not immediatley drop dead, then I think you are being unfair to the author. The author knows they lived a long time. The serpent challenged Eve with
This is a direct contradiction. In this the serpent lied. They did die. It is up to the reader to discern in what ways did they die?
That is a New Testament question.

mdarus

Jake,
You set up a bit of a false dichotomy here. The plural does not have to be polytheistic or Trinitarian. In fact, both of those options are the least likely. the royal plural is the Jewish monotheistic alternative - the plural giving no indication about the number of G(g)ods. The usual argument for the persistence of polytheism in the OT is the different names for God.