[Ratmagiclady]

If that's 'setting the record straight,' ... one wonders what a 'straight record' is supposed to *read* like.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The anthropological roots of a myth may have very little to do with its significance. The meaning of Eden is individual-psychological rather than collective-historical. (Or so it seems to me.)

The myth is not intact - that is the problem. Myths can either be based on imagination or on facts. I expect this myth originated in fact, then got transfigured by its adoption into other systems of belief.

It designates a place or origin of the soul--and an origin is not necessarily something left behind, in the past. One needs to redeem himself for the fall from Eden, that is, to ascend to the origin. Psychologically, Eden is the origin that we need to realize, to which we need to bring ourselves.

This is the meaning assigned later. When people are intent on finding higher meaning, they will find it anywhere - even in a story whose original meaning was different and was lost to them.

(And I think this is a deep human need. Don't people want to be happy? Well, the kind of knowledge that is a way of assertion of the self over the world puts one in the 'wrong' relation to things and thus stands in the way of genuine self-fulfillment. As a sort of vague empirical evidence: generally, the saddest persons are those 'in the know'.)

There is no such empirical evidence, unless you're ignoring half of it. Persons in the know might be able of more empathy and thus of greater sorrow, but that would also make them capable of more joy. There are two sides to each coin and if you don't want to experience sadness, then you will manage to avoid happiness as well - you might as well be a stone.

Also, the myth isn't really about knowledge. That's the literal appearance, but it doesn't make much sense - especially knowledge of good and evil which would make man like God - in God's own words:

003:022 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Why would this knowledge lead to man being miserable? And why man never appears to actually have this knowledge? The only explanation is that this "knowledge" isn't generic "knowledge" and definitely isn't "knowledge of good and evil" as we understand it today.

Then there is the result of that knowledge:

003:016 Unto 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.

003:017 And 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;

Looks like the basic side effects of a lifestyle based on agriculture.

And then, historically, based on these paragraphs, woman is expected to submit to man. A side-effect of a social change is made a good justification for it. Rather Orwellian, except Orwell was late to this game.

There's also the aspect of Adam and Eve being naked and getting dressed after they gain "knowledge". Seems to me like this reflects the first noticeable difference between a member of an "advanced" culture and a member of a "primitive" culture - dress code.

[jeffkrol]

The Genesis account is God setting the record straight after Noah's family/Tower of Babble with time causing the true account to be added to, modified, and twisted into the myths of other civilizations.

That actually may be the other way around....
Not exactly sure what you are trying to say... Genesis is literal and proven?? I think that is as big of a stretch as any "creation myth".. though others are farther out there then some.
Any and all mythology can be challenged and is all based on "faith"...
This line alone begs for interpretation as to God's "duality"
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
Writers of the Book of Genesis
* Two creation stories in Genesis.
* Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
* Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
* Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
* Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
* Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
* Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
* Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah.

It is difficult to account for so many doublets -- most containing slight discrepancies -- if all five books were written over a short interval of time by Moses or by any other single individual. Liberal theologians reasoned that a much more logical explanation is that the books were written by multiple authors who lived long after the events described. That would have allowed the oral tradition to be passed from generation to generation in different areas of the land so that they had a chance to deviate from each other before being written down. In a few cases, triplets have been found in the Pentateuch where the same accounts appears three times.
The Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible
http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

Comparison of the Babylonian
and Noachian flood stories

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.
The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Either:
Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or
The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or
Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
On inerrancy.........
The word "inerrancy" is used to refer to a text that is considered accurate, truthful, and totally free of error. A text that contains mistakes is errant.
The term is often used by conservative theologians:
In Judaism to refer to the Torah,
In Christianity to refer to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (a.k.a. the Old and New Testaments),
In Islam to refer to the Qur'an, and
In other religions to refer to their own holy books.

The Torah, Hebrew/Christian Scriptures, and Qur'an do not agree on many topics including the nature of God; creation and origin of life, the world and the rest of the universe; various scientific topics; morality and ethics; personal salvation; the afterlife; abortion access; equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and transgendered persons; same-sex marriage; and many other cultural matters.

Because the holy books of the world differ from each other, only one of them -- at most -- can be inerrant. Some people suggest that none are inerrant.

Since all of the people who are affiliated with a religion are members of a minority religions, most people's holy book cannot be inerrant. If they believe that their holy book is inerrant, they are probably wrong. Perhaps all are wrong.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm
I guess that doesn't bother people who are determined to believe in their omiscient, omnipotent, benevolent god, but have they ever stopped for just a moment to think about what would have necessarily entailed if this god did indeed send a flood to cover the entire earth to destroy all life on it except for the eight humans and their menagerie aboard the ark? Let's just suppose that the population of the earth at that time was only, say, a hundred thousand. Even with a population that small, there would have necessarily been children and babies and, yes, unborn children still in their mothers' wombs who were killed in the flood. If "God" is indeed pro-life, as the bumperstick claimed, how does the truck owner explain the drowning of so many children, who, even if their parents were wicked to the core, had not the intellectual maturity to know the difference in good and evil (Deut. 1:39)? I personally can't see much benevolence in a deity that would send a flood upon the earth to destroy all of the elephants, giraffes, antelopes, squirrels, rabbits, etc., etc., etc.--except, of course, for the few that were on the ark--but children, babies, and the unborn--there is certainly no benevolence in a deity who could perpetrate such an act. Certainly, a god that would do such a deed as this cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called pro-life.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTPoliticsGodProLife.html

[Ira]

I never analyzed the Garden of Eden mythology or the reported facts to comment on this. I was always too busy thinking about Eve walking around naked through most of it.

And oh yeah--right:

Tell me you didn't also.

[Ratmagiclady]

I never analyzed the Garden of Eden mythology or the reported facts to comment on this. I was always too busy thinking about Eve walking around naked through most of it.

And oh yeah--right:

Tell me you didn't also.

I thought the naked part was the good times?


I think I was too busy wondering 'If that apple made em so smart, why don't they figure who they're hiding from already saw it all before? '

"Oh, that wasn't actually the Tree of Knowledge, that was the Tree of "Dude, WTF?"

[Green_Manelishi]

That actually may be the other way around....

But it isn't.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say... Genesis is literal and proven?? I think that is as big of a stretch as any "creation myth".. though others are farther out there then some.

That's for sure.

Any and all mythology can be challenged and is all based on "faith"...
This line alone begs for interpretation as to God's "duality"
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Writers of the Book of Genesis
[B]* Two creation stories in Genesis.
* Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
* Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
* Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
* Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
* Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
* Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
* Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah.

It is difficult to account for so many doublets -- most containing slight discrepancies -- if all five books were written over a short interval of time by Moses or by any other single individual.

All of these so-called discrepancies are addressed and refuted by many Christian theologians. You can find the same information, but I doubt you care.

Liberal theologians reasoned that a much more logical explanation is that the books were written by multiple authors who lived long after the events described.

I am not surprised. "Liberal theologian" .... I needed a cush job and it was either that or government hack.

That would have allowed the oral tradition to be passed from generation to generation in different areas of the land so that they had a chance to deviate from each other before being written down. In a few cases, triplets have been found in the Pentateuch where the same accounts appears three times.
The Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible
COMPARISON OF BABYLONIAN AND NOAHIC FLOOD STORIES

Religious tolerance? HA HA HA HA. Tolerance for anything except Truth.

Comparison of the Babylonian
and Noachian flood stories

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.
The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Either:
Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or
The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or
Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.
A possible source of the Noah's Flood story
On inerrancy.........
The word "inerrancy" is used to refer to a text that is considered accurate, truthful, and totally free of error. A text that contains mistakes is errant.
The term is often used by conservative theologians:
In Judaism to refer to the Torah,
In Christianity to refer to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (a.k.a. the Old and New Testaments),
In Islam to refer to the Qur'an, and
In other religions to refer to their own holy books.

The Torah, Hebrew/Christian Scriptures, and Qur'an do not agree on many topics including the nature of God; creation and origin of life, the world and the rest of the universe; various scientific topics; morality and ethics; personal salvation; the afterlife; abortion access; equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and transgendered persons; same-sex marriage; and many other cultural matters.

Because the holy books of the world differ from each other, only one of them -- at most -- can be inerrant. Some people suggest that none are inerrant.

One is inerrant. The others are not. Some people are idiots who want their ears tickled.

Since all of the people who are affiliated with a religion are members of a minority religions, most people's holy book cannot be inerrant. If they believe that their holy book is inerrant, they are probably wrong. Perhaps all are wrong.
Is the Bible inerrant -- free of error
I guess that doesn't bother people who are determined to believe in their omiscient, omnipotent, benevolent god, but have they ever stopped for just a moment to think about what would have necessarily entailed if this god did indeed send a flood to cover the entire earth to destroy all life on it except for the eight humans and their menagerie aboard the ark? Let's just suppose that the population of the earth at that time was only, say, a hundred thousand. Even with a population that small, there would have necessarily been children and babies and, yes, unborn children still in their mothers' wombs who were killed in the flood. If "God" is indeed pro-life, as the bumperstick claimed, how does the truck owner explain the drowning of so many children, who, even if their parents were wicked to the core, had not the intellectual maturity to know the difference in good and evil (Deut. 1:39)? I personally can't see much benevolence in a deity that would send a flood upon the earth to destroy all of the elephants, giraffes, antelopes, squirrels, rabbits, etc., etc., etc.--except, of course, for the few that were on the ark--but children, babies, and the unborn--there is certainly no benevolence in a deity who could perpetrate such an act. Certainly, a god that would do such a deed as this cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called pro-life.
The Skeptical Review Online - God Is Pro-Life? - Author Farrell Till
This is typical "I don't like the God of the Bible" so I'll' throw a hissy fit, piss and moan about His cruelty and flip Him the finger. You should probably invent your own god, or gods. The Hindus did. Aztecs did. Mayans did. Mohammed did. Etc. etc. Strange how all of them either cease to exist or want Christianity silenced.

Once again the swine trample the pearls.

[wildman]

If "God" is indeed pro-life, as the bumperstick claimed, how does the truck owner explain the drowning of so many children, who, even if their parents were wicked to the core, had not the intellectual maturity to know the difference in good and evil (Deut. 1:39)? [/B]
The Skeptical Review Online - God Is Pro-Life? - Author Farrell Till

Yes but how else are you going to get the attention of a bunch of bronze age, illiterate, superstitious, stiff-necked Hebrew goat herders, with a life expectancy of 28 years, who has had 9 of his 12 children die before reaching the age of five, some through infanticide, so the others can eat?

You got to come down pretty hard to make things worse then they already were.

Yahweh knew his people well.

[Nesster]

Wow, this has a lot of directions - I've been reading, I've started to post, written some, and then decided not to...

But re the OP - I think you're onto a complex there, per Campbell the Adam and Eve thing is an inversion of the prior one, and a myth about overturning the prior Goddess / planting cycle mythology by patriarchal Thunder God mentality.

Also, there's the business about the 'lost' first wife - or the androgeny of the first human. Seems there are hints of both in the bible version. The first wife was Lilith, so the story goes, who became demonized with all the goddess stuff she represented. The genral pattern is: whatever was holy before, now is deviltry.

Back to Campbell, his grand thesis was that in the East still, and pre Abrahamic desert religions in the West, the fruit of the Tree - both knowledge and of eternal life - is freely available. That is, there is no original sin nor need for salvation, though there is need to wake up and understand. Buddhism for example isn't about salvation like Chrstianity is, the fruit of knowledge and eternal life are within reach of human effort. Adam and Eve, then, split with this.

So, in this sort of reading, a polulation who has been doing the farming cycle with Goddess now is overtaken by aggressive patriarchical herders, whose God jealously insists all others must go. Eve and the Snake (both symbols of what went before) are now suspect and evil, and man must appease his God. Yet, there's a lingering sense that things were better for us, back in the garden...

As yes- apart from the garbage problems and the dietary ones, man now became a beast of burden in the fields, owned by other men. Yet good came with this - look at us now, we might not be pecking away at keyboards now if this splitting and powering hadn't occurred, this onward flailing dissatisfaction and need we have, this capacity to believe our own lies.

[rparmar]

New religions don't start from scratch - they always build on existing beliefs with a different twist. Islam is a continuation of Judaism and Christianity. Christianity is built from Judaism. Judaism is built on top of older myths and legends. Some of these original myths are changed so much that their original intent is almost lost, having been replaced by newer interpretations.

No doubt there.

The Garden of Eden myth has puzzled me for a long time, because frankly, it's hard to make sense why the fall of man is due to gaining divine knowledge, if we are to take the myth literally.

I have always thought the lesson was simple: do not act above your station. Stay meek. Stay under the power of those who know more than you. Every political or religious organisation wishes this belief in their disciples. And so this and similar myths are promulgated.

Then I read Jared Diamond's article The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race and I realized this was it. The event that is at the base of this myth must be the transition of human society from hunter-gathering to agriculture. The so called "curses" associated with the "original evil" are the effects associated with the introduction of agriculture - woman becomes the reproductive tool of man, while man is breaking his back working the land.

An interesting theory, really. But I do not follow it. Where is the fruit that is granting the divine knowledge?

---------- Post added 04-10-2010 at 10:35 PM ----------

Also, there's the business about the 'lost' first wife - or the androgeny of the first human. Seems there are hints of both in the bible version. The first wife was Lilith, so the story goes, who became demonized with all the goddess stuff she represented. The genral pattern is: whatever was holy before, now is deviltry.

Her sin was to not accept that she must always "lie down" under Adam. In other words she refused to be sexually subservient. And so was banished whereupon she took up killing children in their sleep and breeding demons of the wind and night.

Typically sexist story, IOW.

[GeneV]

Yes but how else are you going to get the attention of a bunch of bronze age, illiterate, superstitious, stiff-necked Hebrew goat herders, with a life expectancy of 28 years, who has had 9 of his 12 children die before reaching the age of five, some through infanticide, so the others can eat?

It is sometimes good to be reminded that the tribal life in the wilderness was not quite as Cecil B. DeMille depicted.

[jeffkrol]

Once again the swine trample the pearls.

bit harsh..
anyways I have no problem w/ the New Testament... just the old...

[Green_Manelishi]

bit harsh..
anyways I have no problem w/ the New Testament... just the old...

Not originally my words. Still, seem appropriate.

Agreed there is much in the OT to upset folks who want God to behave as they think He should have behaved; peace love and happiness. Most of the NT that is popular is peace love and happiness. When JC expresses a rather narrow minded viewpoint folks knickers become knotted. The book of Revelation is also a stumbling block; JC is returning, this time with fire in His eyes and sword in His hands. Every knee shall bow.

Again, not my words.

[wildman]

It is sometimes good to be reminded that the tribal life in the wilderness was not quite as Cecil B. DeMille depicted.

Just a thought about all this interpreting 2500 year old text that was about times another 1000 years earlier - believer or not.

My Wife's Grandparents came from the old country back in 1878. They were dairy farmers all their life and never had electricity until they sold the farm and moved to town in the late 1940s.

Like any good Lutheran of their generation they read the bible and believed every word of it as put down in Luther's German bible. My wife remembers helping Grandpa clean the dairy barn for the visit of Maria Josef and the Christ on Christmas eve. Everything was cleaned and the horns polished on the bull with extra feed for the cattle. Grandma even put out bowls of milk for the barn cats. Then he put a lantern out on his mail box to alert the holy family that all was prepared for the arrival of their child in his barn if he was to be so honored.

There was no doubt. When they read the bible they were reading a story about people like themselves. They had lost two children in the flu endemic of 1918 plus one in childbirth. They had lost their entire crop to prairie wild fires and locust. Their well had gone dry many times with 20 cows needing water and of course something seemed to be always sickening and dying on the farm. To them there was nothing "ancient" at all about the ancient tribes of Israel.

When they read the story of David as a shepherd boy learning to hear God speak to him while he was tending sheep this was totally consistent with their life. What they wouldn't understand is the life of their own grandchildren going to work as digital engineers for Intel.

In other words they had more in common with someone in the old testament than, perhaps, the lives of their own grandchildren.

Science is often blamed for the decline in faith in the last 100 years but I think it has much more to do with the profound cultural changes that have occurred than anything to do directly with the increase in scientific knowledge sowing the seeds of secular doubt. Just think of the difference in world view of an American farmer of 1900 compared to the modern industrialized farmer of 2000 never mind a computer programmer.

I digress I know but humor me. I think it's at least somewhat relevant to this thread.

[Ratmagiclady]

Wow, this has a lot of directions - I've been reading, I've started to post, written some, and then decided not to...

But re the OP - I think you're onto a complex there, per Campbell the Adam and Eve thing is an inversion of the prior one, and a myth about overturning the prior Goddess / planting cycle mythology by patriarchal Thunder God mentality.

Also, there's the business about the 'lost' first wife - or the androgeny of the first human. Seems there are hints of both in the bible version. The first wife was Lilith, so the story goes, who became demonized with all the goddess stuff she represented. The genral pattern is: whatever was holy before, now is deviltry.

Back to Campbell, his grand thesis was that in the East still, and pre Abrahamic desert religions in the West, the fruit of the Tree - both knowledge and of eternal life - is freely available. That is, there is no original sin nor need for salvation, though there is need to wake up and understand. Buddhism for example isn't about salvation like Chrstianity is, the fruit of knowledge and eternal life are within reach of human effort. Adam and Eve, then, split with this.

Interesting, no? It's certainly a good observation: the primacy of 'Wake up and understand' as opposed to 'Conquer, command, and declare how the universe is and thus things are to be.'

It's often a big part of how we end up talking at cross-purposes here: when people assume all religions must be centered on the latter.

So, in this sort of reading, a polulation who has been doing the farming cycle with Goddess now is overtaken by aggressive patriarchical herders, whose God jealously insists all others must go. Eve and the Snake (both symbols of what went before) are now suspect and evil, and man must appease his God. Yet, there's a lingering sense that things were better for us, back in the garden...

Good stuff, in general, though associating that entirely with the rise of agriculture and cities is a fair bit too tidy and dualistic and absolutist of itself. Not all 'Sky Gods' are 'patriarchal' and civilization itself often had a certain amount of primacy of Goddesses, notably even regarding cities and civilization themselves.

Sometimes, looking back, people want to project a certain amount of us-v-them (particularly when they've had a heritage of seeing the world and civilization beginning with their own religion)

There's certainly a certain amount of truth to the dynamic, but in polytheistic contexts, things didn't develop this way immediately or all at once: even Judaism wasn't strictly monotheist for a very long time.

As yes- apart from the garbage problems and the dietary ones, man now became a beast of burden in the fields, owned by other men. Yet good came with this - look at us now, we might not be pecking away at keyboards now if this splitting and powering hadn't occurred, this onward flailing dissatisfaction and need we have, this capacity to believe our own lies.

So dark the con of man.

Civilzation, assuredly, is and always has been a challenge, (I sometimes half-joke, 'Before we were so rudely-interrupted.' People do often tend to presume that before Christianity, there was some *other* control-based dogma, just a 'Pagan' one, which also had no interest in change or progress... but that's really not the case, either: there's kind of a self-serving narrative of what Rome was like *before* they took over and made Christianity the only-accepted state religion. (And of course, taking over Christianity in the process,) )

As for what is going on today, well, all this was *expensive,* I like to say: it's cost us a *lot* in time and life and suffering and Earth's own resources and just plain *trauma,* to cultures, peoples, families and anything else that can carry on such cycles.

But we *have* it. We actually have all the pieces we need to make this 'civilization' thing work. And all that stuff it cost to get us here, we probably don't get again if we break this.

We need to pick up and carry forward, maybe, yes, setting aside some things that didn't work or no longer work, in the process, but that's different from *trying to go backwards.*

People often don't realize just how fragile and interdependent some of these mighty machines are, and how much we rely on them. Some indeed may be nostalgic for economic feudalism, and, really medieval religious ideas, but that's a tragically-short-sighted view if they think their lives or world will be better for it.

Certainly, it's no 'garden'

So, here we are. Just about Stardate Aquarius, as some like to mark the ages. Things are never that tidy, but I think it's a question of 'what have we learned, kids?'

'Wake up and understand' would be a darn good start.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

But I do not follow it. Where is the fruit that is granting the divine knowledge?

There's no literal fruit, of course, the story is metaphorical. Agriculture would be that metaphorical fruit.

I was checking Wikipedia and, unexpectedly, this idea is not new. I found this in the Garden of Eden article:

Alan Millard has hypothesized that the Garden of Eden does not represent a 'geographical' place, but rather represents 'cultural memory' of "simpler times", when man lived off God's bounty (as "primitive" hunters and gatherers still do) as opposed to toiling at agriculture (being "civilized").[17]

The citation comes from "A. R. Millard (January 1984). "The Etymology of Eden". Vetus Testamentum 34 (1): 103–106."

Also, this was not a one-time event - it kept happening until more recent times, as primitive cultures were "discovered". For example, Tahiti:

The European influence disrupted traditional society, bringing prostitution, venereal disease, alcohol, and Christianity.

The European "stimulus package"

As for dress code, the article on toplessness is telling. For one thing, it starts with a picture by Gauguin, of two Tahitian women.

Traditional cultures of North America, Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands considered female toplessness normal and acceptable, at least until the arrival of Christian missionaries,[1] and it continues to be the norm in many indigenous cultures today.

It's interesting to see who was playing the role of the serpent in recent times.