THoughts on the Story of Eden

[mercygate]

Perhaps you are working fom a literal approach, I am working from an allegorical one.

Right. And your allegory is good as a political statement.

I’m just suggesting that the story does not of itself support the full weight of your allegory.

 

[Jerusha]

I would suggest you read I Nephi of the Book of Mormon, then, to get that other layer of meaning. There is a very interesting dream sequence there, take a look at it and see what you get out of it.

 

[mercygate]

I would suggest you read I Nephi of the Book of Mormon, then, to get that other layer of meaning. There is a very interesting dream sequence there, take a look at it and see what you get out of it.

Thank you for the reference.

 

[Verisimilitude]

All this is a way of showing that there is no independent, prime evil in the world. At the time, pagan religoins taught that the source of evil was metaphysical – that is attributed to a god or gods or simply part of the overall way the world is. But the Eden story clearly shows that the source of evil is moral. It is caused by humanity.

I’m not sure I agree with the analysis. Genesis does not suggest what time period there is between mans creation and the Fall. I suspect it was quite a long time as we reckon time. I will have to think about it some, but I always assumed the serpent was a metephor because first of all the power of speech is not given to animals and like when God says to Cain a bit later that he can defeat sin bit it is crouching waiting to pounce on him. Secondly it seems to suggest the temptation of Eve was from an outside source and not just a means to describe her moral choice giving in to a selfish desire that disobeyed God.

 

[Spirithound]

Significance of two trees:

Man now has more responsibility in making choices, one set being good, one set being bad.

Good:
Marriage bond
Male responsibility to children
Division of labor
etc, etc.

Bad:
Racism
Materialism
Sex as act of hatred
etc. etc.

But the Trees in Genesis are not opposites of each other. One is not the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of Death. One is not the Tree of Knowledge while the other is the Tree of Ignorance. There must be something more than a simple dichotomy.

 

[Angelos]

IMPO, the depiction of the “evil creature” misleading Adam and Eve as “serpent” was meant to fit the setting of the story. Since the state of perfection prior to the fall was symbolized by an amazing garden (a piece of land isolated from the rest of the world, which calls to mind the promised land) and since the notion of experiencing evil as well as good was symbolized by eating of the fruits of a tree, the tempter was presented as an inextricable component of the garden and as one supposed by Eve to know better about the trees.

 

[Valke2]

If we are to believe the naming of the animals indicates dominion, what are we to make of the plight of Job? I do not see the role of prosecutor, but tempter, albeit with illness and despair, but tempter nonetheless.

I’m not sure what in Job contradicts man’s dominion over animals. But even if you don’t take the commandment to name all the animals as a sign of dominion, Genesis expressly grants us dominion over the animal kingdom in the preceding chapter.

In the opening paragraphs of Job, when God and Satan are speaking, Satan seems clearly to be taking the role of prosecutor, that is, he is making an argument against Job’s righteousness. I would agree that He is also tempting Job to abandon his faith. But he is doing so with God’s acknowledgment/allowance.

 

[Valke2]

What significance to you think the two trees and other items-the serpent, etc.- would have in this interpretation?

Well, the tree of knowledge of good and evil would represent the knowledge of agriculture and childbirth. The Curse resulting from the eating of the tree would be an explanation of why farming and childbirth are painful. I suppose the Tree of Life would represent the option that we had to live off the land and procreate without hard work or pain.

The serpent, as you probably know, was considered a diety by many pagan religions. It’s use in the story may be two fold. It is an appropriate diety like form used to transfer sacred knowledge (childbirth and agriculture) to man. Also, its complete submission to God’s will by the end of the story demonstrates God’s supremecy over popular dieties. Just as the opening chapter can be seen as stressing God’s complete control over nature, as opposed to endowing nature with any independent power.

 

[inJESUS]

In the opening paragraphs of Job, when God and Satan are speaking, Satan seems clearly to be taking the role of prosecutor, that is, he is making an argument against Job’s righteousness. I would agree that He is also tempting Job to abandon his faith. But he is doing so with God’s acknowledgment/allowance.

am confused now with your position. So there is satan but he does nothing that God does not allow? or there is no satan and Job has a different meaning?

 

[MementoMori3283]

I’m not sure what in Job contradicts man’s dominion over animals. But even if you don’t take the commandment to name all the animals as a sign of dominion, Genesis expressly grants us dominion over the animal kingdom in the preceding chapter.

In the opening paragraphs of Job, when God and Satan are speaking, Satan seems clearly to be taking the role of prosecutor, that is, he is making an argument against Job’s righteousness. I would agree that He is also tempting Job to abandon his faith. But he is doing so with God’s acknowledgment/allowance.

What I mean to say, that words can not convey simply in these fora, is that we interpret some passages exactly as they are implied or for that matter stated: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "

However, when there is some doubt we clamor to interpret through a filter of faith.

Now the Lord said to the Adversary, “Behold, all that he has is in your hands; only upon him do not stretch forth your hand.”

Now the Lord said to the Adversary, “Where are you coming from?” And the Adversary replied to the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it.”

And the Lord said to the Adversary, “Here he is in your hands, but preserve his life.”
Now the Adversary departed from the presence of the Lord, and he smote Job with severe boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.

So, in Job, we see the Adversary as an aggressor, acting independently with God’s blessing so to speak.

 

[Valke2]

am confused now with your position. So there is satan but he does nothing that God does not allow? or there is no satan and Job has a different meaning?

Jews do not view Satan as a fallen angel or doing anything that is against God’s Will. We don’t read Satan into Genesis, although we acknowledge his role in Job.

 

[inJESUS]

Jews do not view Satan as a fallen angel or doing anything that is against God’s Wi

ll. as far as i know, we do not believe either that he works independantly of God’s will.

We don’t read Satan into Genesis, although we acknowledge his role in Job.

 

[Valke2]

as far as i know, we do not believe either that he works independantly of God’s will.
but you said you do not believe he is an entity … yet otherwise Job wouldn’t make sense know what i mean? God was not adressing Job when He was adressing the “adversary”…if you don’t read it in Genesis, ok, but your point was that you don’t believe he is an entity unless i misunderstood you.

 

[buffalo]

** St. Ambrose, On Paradise**

 

[Angelos]

inJESUS;3701487:

I meant (originaly) that we don’t believe satan has anymore independence than any other angel and that it doesn’t make an appearance in Genesis.

Having said that, it seems obvious that in the book of Job, Satan appears to exercise more independnece than we usually see in angels. ALso, angels can often be seen as a manifestation of God, or an emanation. I would have a hard time making such an inference with Satan, although the implications would be interesting.

How do you interpret the enmity put by God between the woman’s seed and the serpent?

Why do you think there is an implied similarity and contrast between God’s act of creation and the serpent’s act of deception?

 

[Sam_777]

Hi Valke2,

Since you’re a Jew, I have some questions to you and all other Jews, I will be grateful if you address them:

1. How Jews were dealing with demon-possessed people prior to Jesus, how they were able to heal them?, or the demon-possessed person would remain possessed for his/her entire life?, I couldn’t find any reference in the OT for that, maybe you have other references.
2. Genesis 3:22 “And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”"
   Do you think “us” could indicates somehow “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”?
3. Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
   Does Immanuel equal Jesus for you, if not, then why?
4. Daniel 7:13-14 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
   Whom do you think that will be?

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;3702358:

How do you interpret the enmity put by God between the woman’s seed and the serpent?

Why do you think there is an implied similarity and contrast between God’s act of creation and the serpent’s act of deception?

I interpret the curse on the serpent as a way of explaining why humans today are instintively repelled by snakes.

Can you give some more detail on the parallel between the serpent’s act and God’s act of creation?

 

[Valke2]

Hi Valke2,

Since you’re a Jew, I have some questions to you and all other Jews, I will be grateful if you address them:

1. How Jews were dealing with demon-possessed people prior to Jesus, how they were able to heal them?, or the demon-possessed person would remain possessed for his/her entire life?, I couldn’t find any reference in the OT for that, maybe you have other references.

At the time, many if not most ailments were attributable to “demons”, if I recall correctly. They would heal sick people through prayer and whatever medicine they used and would attribute success (often) to casting out demons. Healing and casting out demons were pretty much the same thing back then.

It was taught that demons were mostly invisible and that the rabbis knew a way to see them. However, it was dangerous and one rabbi was harmed, then cured byother rabbis through prayer (this is in a teaching that was given during the time the Talmud was written but that does not appear in the Talmud).

Josephus in “Jewish Antiquities” discusses a Jewish exorcist named Eleazar, who extracted a demon through a man’s nostrils, in front of Emperor Vespasian.

1st Century rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, encountered a demon and commanded that they never go in places where people lived. The demon begged for mercy and for some reason, he agreed to allow demons some free reign a couple of days a week. From this came the tradition/superstition of not going out alone at night on certain days.

1. Genesis 3:22 “And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”"
   Do you think “us” could indicates somehow “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”?

No. I always thought that was a stretch. Is there anywere in the Gospels where GOd or Jesus refer to each other in the plural?

1. Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
   Does Immanuel equal Jesus for you, if not, then why?

Getting real off topic here. I’ve addressed this in other threads and will get back to you with the link(s).

 

[Angelos]

I interpret the curse on the serpent as a way of explaining why humans today are instintively repelled by snakes.

Do you believe that people are instinctively repelled by serpents today because the prototypical serpent in Eden spoke to Eve and misled both her and her husband? It is clear in Genesis that the curse imposed on the serpent was NOT a result of its existence in the garden with Adam and Eve or its contact with them, but of its achievement in deceiving first humans and making them disobey a divine commandment.

Can you give some more detail on the parallel between the serpent’s act and God’s act of creation?

God used Adam to CREATE Eve vs the serpent used Eve to DECEIVE Adam.

The serpent deliberately reversed the chain of CREATION while causing humans to fall:

God-Adam-Eve (chain of creation) vs Serpent-Eve-Adam (chain of disobedience reaching God)

 

[Jerusha]

In Greek mythology, there is a similar story, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora

Going back to the anthropological, rather than theological roots, disease also entered in as human population increased. Humanity could have chosen to live in the same way, theoretically living a long life-span without disease. Thus we see pre-Noachian people living greatly exaggerated life-spans.

Angelos, your post poses some great questions.