1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?Again we hear that knowledge is a sin, in a Promethean or Icarian don't-horn-in-on-God's-action kind of way.
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?
And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
My recent debates with Christianists give me a sense of what this is all about: they believe that morality is absolute and that it comes only from God.
Man, they believe, is incapable of understanding what good and bad are. Their entire world-view would collapse if they had to accept that we live in a world of relative morality, and that it's ours to influence and interpret.
This drives their need to watch life through black-and-white-colored glasses. The only other colors they see are the ones that don't run. America's imperialistic misadventures and a history marked by slavery and genocide of native peoples do not compute — they must be ignored. Iran-Contra can't matter. Abu Ghraib can't matter.
God's Blessed America = good. Pure good, goddamn it, and burn in Hell, motherfucker, if you don't get it.
In verse #8, Adam and Eve hide from the old man, leaving him to beg "Where art thou?" I was under the impression that God was omniscient. Ain't he?
Adam rats out his woman in verse #12, even though he knew full well that he wasn't supposed to eat the fruit. Disappointing to see that the first man was a dick.
Verse #16 is pretty fucked-up. Because Eve plucked a couple of apples (actually, are they ever called "apples," or just "fruit"?), childbirth is going to be painful, and women will be subservient to men. Now I see where Adam gets it.
Weird punishment in verse #17. It seems to say that your punishment for eating that fruit is that you'll keep on eating that fruit. Oh, and you and the ground you walk on will be cursed. Maybe that makes sense, the way the sergeant let Private Pyle eat the smuggled donut in Full Metal Jacket.
There are some curious gaps in the story. How do Adam and Eve know what dying is (verse #3)? Or what bread is (verse #19)? At the very least, those would have been interesting subplots.
Speaking of story development, in verse #22, God says that man is now a god. Sounds like it should be the end of the story: God makes man, man becomes god. Nice and circular.
But there are 1186 chapters to go. I hope this isn't going to be one of those AI or Return of the King deals, with a gazillion false endings.
Well, there's at least one remaining mystery to follow: if man is a god, why do we need all those churches? Seems kind of masturbatory.
And what's up with the "tree of life"? That sounds like a pretty big plot device to throw in here and not explain. The forbidden fruit was from the tree of knowledge; with that one, we were told about the serpent and the Gremlins-like warning, but God's ghostwriter can't spare a couple of syllables of exposition for the "tree of life"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Finally, Adam (along with, I reckon, Eve) is driven out of the Garden of Eden to try his hand at farming. Just like "Green Acres," but without the catchy theme song. Hmm... Eve, Eva — coincidence?
If they've been driven out, I'm not sure how they're supposed to keep eating that knowledge fruit.
But at least the chapter closes with a bit more about the tree of life: it's guarded by baby angels and a rotating fiery sword. Easily the weirdest security tandem until Turner & Hooch.
29 comments:
Okay, nothing there...
I look forward to the next vein to mine for more atheist gold!
Excellent, VL! You've made me turn the drudgery of reading the bible into a treasure hunt.
Naomi
I always thought it was a story about growing up. You are no longer taken care of and have to make your own way in the world. The "punishments" reflect life as it is. We have to work to produce our living.
In line 17, I believe 'it' refers to the ground, not the fruit.
The revelation received from eating from the tree of knowledge was that they were naked and were ashamed. I would have expected a better revelation. Like better eat from the tree of life while you have the chance.
I was taught that the serpent was the Devil. Also the serpent’s story turns out to be correct. This is never mentioned in Sunday school.
Nowhere in the bible does it claim that God is on America’s side. Like abortion and stem cell research, America is not mentioned in the bible. Any claims about these things must be the assumptions of those making the claims.
I have also wondered about the good and evil, black and white view of the bible. My experience is there are a few really good people, a few really evil people with most of us somewhere in the middle. Much like a bell curve. It seems good to develop a sense of good and evil but the notion that a country or a group of people is all good or all evil is difficult for me.
I remember when I first heard Joseph Campbell speak on the Moyers PBS series--how he was able to explain, in ways I as a secularist could comprehend, various world myths, including the Old and New Testaments.
Here's a link to Moyers and Campbell as they examine what the Garden of Eden story looks like as a metaphor for the human condition. It's interesting to me that there is a quartet of players: god, man, woman, snake. In the Catholic trinity, what have they removed? Snake=spirit, as it sheds its skin so that new life can be born, so I feel that "snake energy" lives in the Holy Ghost (thank you Scooby Doo). It is the feminine that is cast out of their mythology (and because the feminine=nature so too nature is tossed aside). What a drab mythology!
The Wasteland is our spiritual heritage, one of separateness, of disconnection--the promise of heaven comes with a condition of giving oneself (whatever that means) to the godhead: in the West that means Jesus. Follow the Rules, or pay an eternal price! No thanks. Instead I offer this Bronze Age God the balm of compassion and release: be free, old sod! Be free!
+++
The 'apple' references are in late medieval paintings in Western Europe. The fruit has also been represented (in paintings) as a fig or shaddock (a sort of grapefruit-like citrus).
Weird punishment in verse #17. It seems to say that your punishment for eating that fruit is that you'll keep on eating that fruit.
I always thought it meant growing up too, but not quite the way frank puts it. It's about how, once you know something -- once you lose your ignorance and therefore your innocence -- you never get to go back to the innocence. You always know the thing you've learned, whatever it is. You can't un-know it.
tehanu,
Your interpretation sounds reasonable to me.
Can you help me with these questions:
Why didn't God want them to eat from that tree? Why did he mete out his punishment on every woman who would ever give birth? And why would we pray to such a God?
This story always pissed me off!
* First of all, if you're an all-knowing god, why plant a tree you don't want them eating from; forbid them to eat from it knowing they're going to do it anyway; pretend you don't know they've eaten from it; and finally, punish them for eating from a tree you knew darned well they were going to eat from that you yourself planted!
Of course, now that I think about it, the bible so far hasn't made a single claim that god is perfect, all-good, -knowing, -present, or -powerful...
At any rate, this story makes a great excuse to view women as secondary/adjunct to men and behave accordingly (I'm still looking at it literally). Like mjs says, it takes motifs from the goddess religions in the area at the time (snake in relation to woman, woman in the garden, magical mystical tree of knowledge/life/power) and reverses them to disempower us - not that the depiction of Adam is very flattering, either.
I think "cherubim" meant something different back in the day - more like the winged sphinx-like figures the Hebrews borrowed from the Assyrians (if I'm remembering correctly) - much scarier than baby angels!
Now the turning flaming sword - I interpret that to mean a rotating laser gun turret a la Star Wars! Still, a dab of science fiction in the midst of your fantasy can be dicey; better authors have tried it and failed to pull it off...
My apologies, I can't seem to help myself from commenting. I always understood this as a story of how we were God's pets who were punished for getting into something we shouldn't have. Like your dog and the garbage. Blasphemy, I know. God punishes us by making us live under our own means instead of the free ride we were used to. All we had to do was to unquestionably serve God in ignorant bliss, and because we succeeded to our own desires (metaphorically a snake?) we were punished accordingly.
I'm late to posting here, but have a query if someone could help.
Verse 22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us" - who is god talking to? Who are the 'us'? Is this other gods or what?
Thanks for any help with this.
Sarah, that's a super-great question. It really does seem to imply that God's got some peers up there.
A quick Google search turned up this interesting page on an interesting site. It turns out the polytheistic thing shows up a fair number of times.
Thanks for joining in!
Hello, I'm a latecomer here as well, but I look forward to sticking with you.
Have you ever been to netbible.org? I'm not sure it can be treated as impartial because its avowed purpose is "to see all people become mature followers of Jesus Christ," but I have found its numerous footnotes interesting. In particular, I like that they point out areas where subtleties of translation become important. They address God's use of the plural first person in the first footnote here:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen
&chapter=1&verse=26
I don't know if I buy their explanation, though. While the "heavenly court" thing sounds plausible, the verse smells polytheistic to me.
Don,
Welcome to BS4A!
Always glad to have someone come in and help detail historical info, etc.
My personal focus here is on taking the stories at face value, as opposed to doing extensive historical research myself, but it is a most welcome complement to my "modern eyes" approach.
I know I'm coming in really late on this topic, but I just found this site today. It's a really interesting idea and I enjoy reading everyone's comments as much as your ideas on the passages.
As for the references to gods in the plural, Judaism (which is what the Old Testament was about, of course, as there was no Christianity until Jesus came along) was originally a polytheistic, tribal religion that slowly evolved into a monistic religion (monism has many definitions, but in theology it's basically the acceptance that there are many gods, but it's only okay to worship one of them), and then finally into a monothesitic religion, only one God, period, for ever and ever Amen. That may be why there are references to gods in the plural or it may not. I'm not entirely sure, as most of my religious study has been about Buddhism and Taoism. There have been a lot of studies on the history, formation, and evolution of religion and a lot of cultural anthropologists and religious scholars have said similar things, I found when I was studying Judaism.
Anyway, it's possible they were influenced by the religions that came before them, because at least most, if not all, of the religions before Judaism were polytheistic in nature--Hinduism to name the best known one, as well as all of the ancient polytheistic pagan religions (such as the Celts/Egyptians/Babylonians etc. etc.) and all of the tribal hunter-gathering societies that took over after our good friends the dinosaurs went extinct.
Unfortunately I can't give you any written resources to do any reading on your own, other than the information for my textbook if you want it so you can do some reading on your own, as I've since lost all of the notes and references I had written out for the religions class I learned that in, but with the power of Google and Wikipedia I'm sure you can find anything you're looking for. That polytheism tidbit always stuck with me, though, because I'd had no idea that that was true until we started our studies on Judaism in that class.
Marie,
So, is it possible that this inerrant book has an error, that they periodically forgot that they were rolling out the new UniGod product, after years of selling Multi-God stories?
Vast--
It's possible, but I can't say for certain. I personally think you're right in your assumption, but I'm sure Christians and Jews would have some other kind of explanation for it (the idea of 'false gods' comes to mind). The oldest translation of the Bible I've read is the KJV, and there are definitely many older translations back to the original Greek and Hebrew, neither of which I understand. Also, the Bible is one of the most censored, edited, and rewritten books in history. The first English translation, done by William Tyndale around 1524-1526, was banned and burned by the Catholic Church in Europe because they thought everyone should have to read it in the original languages. It was especially bad in areas where the Catholic v. Protestant issues were at their worst, because each sect thought it should be read/translated/understood/etc. etc. in certain, different ways. In America in 1833, Noah Webster edited it like crazy and made thousands of changes to various passages simply because he didn't like them and thought they were distasteful. That translation was banned pretty quickly. Still, I can't really take the Bible seriously because of that. Personally, until I can read one of the original versions myself, I'm going to take everything in the newer English versions with a grain of salt.
God totally missed a chance to crack moses up on mt sinai.
Gen 3 v1.5
And the woman sayeth Holy SHIT! A talking snake!
Hung0v3r,
The talking snake -- definitely something I shouldn't have overlooked. Thanks!
My recent debates with Christianists give me a sense of what this is all about: they believe that morality is absolute and that it comes only from God. Man, they believe, is incapable of understanding what good and bad are.
--
Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil
I agree that this is what many Christians seem to think, and that the Bible directly contradicts it. It seems that all men know what good and evil are through knowledge, and by the mere fact that opinions differ, there cannot be a moral absolute.
Reference the comment about William Tyndale; he was burned by the church for translating the bible into English.
Let us not forget that the sin of Adam is passed (through the semen, if you believe Augustine) to each of his descendents. This is the reason why even the best non-believers must burn eternally in hell.
alnitak,
Welcome to BS4A, and thanks for your comments!
Hello all,
Here are my comments for Gen3.
1) The Tree of Knowledge - CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. You guys have to remember that we're only in Chapter 3 of the 1st of 66 books of the bible. What I mean is that you are drawing conclusions based not on all of scripture but on how you happen to feel about a specific topic. Of course knowledge is not sin. That would be a direct contradiction of other bible verses. Read the book of Proverbs and that should answer that question. Right there in the 1st chapter of Proverbs you can see the importance of wisdom and knowledge, and that fools dispise it. A fool, in biblical speak, is said to be someone who totally rejects God. Now, in modern times that doesn't seem like a bid thing to most, but if there is a God, it would be downright foolish not to follow Him now wouldn't it? So, in the context of the bible, in God's economy, it is foolish to not follow God because there is no others. There is only God's truth, and it happens to be the truth and not one among many truths. But you have to discover that for yourselves, which leads me to point 2.
2) In writing these entries so far I've considered 2 things. One, that because these are old blogs I might not have my comments read by any of the more recent readership. My original plan was to comment on each chapters blog in an effort to catch up to the currect blog. While that might still not be a terrible idea, perhaps it would be better to start at the current blog and work back, only to stay engaged with current readers.
The second thing, and this being more serious, is that from the comments made in this blog, it doesn't seem that anybody is really "studying" the bible, but is rather "commenting" on the bible. A true bible study first has to come to the conclusion that at the very least the bible "might" be true. Any other way to look at real true bible study is just a farce. You filter God's word through your own opinions, commentate on them, and move on. That is not a bible study. If, however, the current readership would except even the remotest possibility that the bible MIGHT be true, then you are no longer an athiest but an agnostic. Not sure how that would effect the title of this blog or the contents therein, but there it is.
So I ask you, whoever reads this little blip of ether, that you consider a REAL TRUE bible study, not a slamfest on what you really have no desire to learn from, save to try and justify your own self.
I did have a whole slew of comments on this chapter in response to the comments given, but I'm going to hold off until later in favor of being more current.
See you in the latest bible study.
m-p
Ah yes, the Context for the Tree of Knowledge. The Context is that a few centuries before this part of the Bible was first written, Sumeria was dominating the region. Its traders traded with the people in Canaan/Israel/Palestine, and swapped stories as traders on slow journeys often do. Sumeria has this legend... - proven to predate the bible by being written in stone dating from that era (while the earliest surviving bible is more recent than the 3rd century BC).
The Sumerian legend tells about a tree of life, and a tree of knowledge; the fruit from the tree of knowledge was offered by one of the gods to a man named Adapa.
Adapa then later used this knowledge in a way which lead to him being invited to a meal with the other gods. The god who had offered him knowledge told the man that the other gods would offer him food, but that he shouldn't take it because it would bring death. The other gods then offered the man food which he refused; but the gods were offering him the food of immortality, because they had decided to make him a god, and the first god had just lied to him.
The Epic of Gilgamesh (also pre bible) also contains an account of the plant of life; and it is a wicked serpent which causes man to lose access to the immortality the plant would have offered.
Note how the Adapa story has the creature that gives Adapa knowledge also being the creature that causes him to lose the opportunity for immortality. Over the centuries these stories got twisted, and it must have changed so that the connection between the knowledge and loss of immortality was more direct.
There are a number of other connections between Adapa and Adam, including the name, which in Akkadian writing looks nearly identical (indeed "Adapa" may be the wrong pronunciation, and "Adama" may be the correct one).
If a fool is someone who rejects God, then surely you are fourfold a fool for rejecting Ganesh, Tiw, Ishtar, and Hermes?
You filter the Bible through your opinions. The translators of the version you read filtered it through their opinions. It is ALWAYS filtered through opinions, so how can you fault anyone for being obvious about the fact. Many of the most academically respected studies of the bible are called "commentaries", because they are composed of the results of specific people "commenting" on the bible.
Exactly what do you define by "True". 100% true, 99% true, 50% true? Take out all the inaccurate stuff and you are bound to be left with something true; for example, "an Omer is 1/10 of an Ephah":TRUE. That doesn't compel me to conclude that I'm at least agnostic though, since it basically says nothing about my beliefs.
Hi.
I think the punishment for the snake "upon thy belly shalt thou go" is a bit wierd.
How was the snake getting around before this? If it was already a snake as we know it, then I think it got off kind of lightly.
Anonymous,
What a great point!
m-p,
Being atheist does not require 100% certainty. I have 0 evidence that I should use this text as a basis for my life or that God exists at all. I would accept the possibility if proper, convincing, peer-reviewed and verifiable evidence were presented. This does not make me agnostic. That is like me telling you you are an atheist for not believing in Apollo or Zeus.
Also, I have yet to see any moral lessons in this text worth passing on.
UBD,
I'm about to post about Exodus 30, and 80 chapters into the Good Book, I've still found scarcely any positive moral lessons.
I just found this blog and I love it! I've always meant to read the bible (it would have helped in college what with all the Lit and Film studies) and this is the perfect way for me to nibble at it while stuck at work.
Also? I have to admit to having a huge crush on the bible scholor posting in these comments--and I'm three chapters in!
Something interesting I noticed here is the fact that THE LORD told Adam & Eve that they would die should they eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent told Adam & Eve they wouldn't die...they would have their eyes opened up. Then it goes on to say that Adam & Eve ate the fruit from the tree and did not die...their eyes were opened up just as the snake said. Seems to me that the snake was the only honest one here and it would appear that THE LORD broke one of his own commandments. If THE LORD is supposed to be the be all and end all of morality, then shouldn't he follow his own rules?
Sooo..... how exactly do Adam and Eve know what's appropriate and what isn't? Why didn't they put leaves on their arms? Why their genitals? What if I was ashamed of my legs but not my balls? would I cover them up? No, it's society telling me to. Plus, if these are the original humans and no one is around, how do they know how to create clothing? Overall, it doesn't seem to add up.
OK so i'm a 17 year old christian, just for reference, so i know i wont have the answer to everything. reading your articles i have figured that you have some intelligence so i know you aren't a dumb atheist, just a sarcastic one lol. anyways i thought i would offer a couple explanations of these scriptures since i think you are fuzzy one a couple.
in verse 8, he asked them where he was, albeit that he is omniscient because of accountability reasons. just like your dad would ask where you were when you were a kid if you drew on the wall, even if he knew were you were.
verse 12, yeah, his bad lol
verse 17 is saying because of your sin you will have to work for what you want, rather than god supplying everything you need in the garden of eden.
the thing about knowing what death is in verse three; now this is just my mind traveling around because you bring up a valid point, so what i can explain for that is since this book wasn't written by Adam or eve themselves, the perspective of such would only have to be explained in a way that the person writing the book understands it. i.e. the person writing knows what death is because he came after Adam and eve, so the story is written that way. verse 19 is under my same speculation.
verse 22 isnt saying that they are a god, he (God) is saying that he knows good and evil, like God and the devil, which is who he was talking to in this scripture. the devil was an angle so he would know good and evil, so that explains that.
just clearing that up
Post a Comment