(July 20, 2014 at 4:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: The scene as set in previous verses is one of an idyllic paradise, two naked people in a garden, not a care in the world, under the watch of a divine benefactor who has one simple rule. We can already see the fabric of a story about childhood and disobedience forming, which is fitting ( I think), in an origins narrative. That god is a parent and the humans are children is established in as few words as possible, and this is an impressive bit of authorship - an extremely judicious use of breath. <snip>
How relevant does this narrative seem to you, under a reading like this one? Is it surprising that a story like this would survive so long?

It's very relevant looked at in this way. Many a Bible-As-Literature does just that too. And I don't think it's all that far off the mark from the original intent. Unfortunately, I have heard the tale so often as an explanation for 1) original sin --- a Christian concept tacked on later; and 2) an explanation for the lower status of women that I have to take a deep breath and count to ten before I can look at it any other way.

Interesting how tied grown-up responsibilities and sex are. And in a world without birth control they really were, weren't they?

(July 20, 2014 at 4:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: If I get enough kudos.... I might be tempted to go through the bible line by line......show some fundies how it's done. /kudoswhorecapon

Please do.

(July 20, 2014 at 8:39 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I think it's a great allegory for the reasons you mentioned and also because I think it can be broadened to include the entire genesis of conscious reflection itself; that is, there certainly seems to be a crude innocence, if you will, in other animals that most human beings do not share. It's almost as if the Garden of Eden story was an attempt to capture the all too familiar saying, "We're too evolved for our own good." (To eat from "the tree of knowledge").

This is really a good point you're making.

About ten years ago I read a book called Forbidden Knowledge, which dealt with the titular topic not only in history, but also its expression in the arts -- Frankenstein, the various horror movies of the Fifties and Sixties positing monsters coming from techno-nightmares.

It struck me then that the entire Eden story is an allegory about the danger of curiosity and learning, a danger which should have been obvious to the founders of the religion. I reckon Genesis was included as it was written precisely because it is a not-so-subtle warning to believers to not ask questions, to blindly obey, and that the penalty for not so doing is not only death, but the damnation of your progeny.

"Never forget -- knowledge is bad." Seen in that light, it's not so surprising that the fervent faithful despise science, despise nonconformity, and often home-school their children.

Knowledge is not bad, in the narrative (or else they would have called it knowledge, not the knowledge of good and evil). Knowledge is suffering. They were already naked - had been since day one, they simply didn't know that they should be ashamed (the originators experience). Knowledge can change a situation without any physical alteration. Something can be okay and fun...and then suddenly, not so. You can almost taste the authors regret about having gained the knowledge of shame, for instance.

Keep in mind, I'm referencing this without theology, I don't need it, neither do the narratives. That knowledge is bad is some self hating jews idea that they were better off without the law, as ignorant as they may have been. "Noble savage" sort of shit.

(July 20, 2014 at 2:40 pm)ThomM Wrote:

(July 20, 2014 at 7:55 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Tradition has it that Moses was the author.

I don't think his contract got renewed, though; he's only got one book to his credit.

Since there is no mention of Israel in the historical record until about 1400 bce - we can also call Moses another MYTH.

We already know that the story of the exodus has no support in the historical record - nor in archeology of the area. In addition - there is no mention of the Israelites in bondage to Egypt at that time - even though we have a complete list of those who were. Once could make a case for saying that Israel was too small to be on the list - but then that would make their numbers far less than claimed as well.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humor

---

(July 20, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Knowledge is not bad, in the narrative (or else they would have called it knowledge, not the knowledge of good and evil). Knowledge is suffering. They were already naked - had been since day one, they simply didn't know that they should be ashamed (the originators experience). Knowledge can change a situation without any physical alteration. Something can be okay and fun...and then suddenly, not so. You can almost taste the authors regret about having gained the knowledge of shame, for instance.

Keep in mind, I'm referencing this without theology, I don't need it, neither do the narratives. That knowledge is bad is some self hating jews idea that they were better off without the law, as ignorant as they may have been.

I get what you're saying, and I'm really enjoying the points you're making. But my point is that there is a subliminal message being conveyed, a subtext, that was certainly useful to those spreading the Gospel ... and asking for tithing. In short, I am not referencing the theology of the allegory, but rather, the utility of such a reading.

---

(July 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Love how she comes down with a mystery disease - and then poof...gives birth to a child...lol. That and the constant theme of jealousy between brothers. The originator of that narrative clearly had no love for people coming out of the west. Fuckers, wisping up like the wind and impregnating little girls as they breeze past.

Authors ask for money today, storytellers asked for money then. I wont take anyones subtle message away from them, whatever someone sees there is valid....but....the narrative is a successful vehicle because it allowed to narrator to rattle his cup at as broad a group as possible. That's because it's a pretty good story, regardless of what may have sprung up when it was cobbled together with other narratives in the distant future. It remained a good way to rattle the cup even after it was wedded to the other narratives. Now that, is fucking resilience...cause some of the rest of this shit is booooooring.

Nows a good time to remind everyone that my cup is rattling.....gimme mah kudos.

@Jenny

Quote:2) an explanation for the lower status of women that I have to take a deep breath and count to ten before I can look at it any other way.

It was Eve that had the balls to take the first bite. Adam was timid as a churchmouse. I'd say she's the "aggressor" in the relationship, definitely wearing the pants (that they were subsequently gifted with)...lol. He's the quiet conniver, the child that doesn't prevent misbehavior, but is quick to blame his fellows when caught. Maybe he should have stood up to god right there and then. All around he seems, to me, to be a sad sort of archetype for a man (even if he might be a realistic one).

(July 20, 2014 at 8:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Authors ask for money today, storytellers asked for money then. I wont take anyones subtle message away from them, whatever someone sees there is valid....but....the narrative is a successful vehicle because it allowed to narrator to rattle his cup at as broad a group as possible. That's because it's a pretty good story, regardless of what may have sprung up when it was cobbled together with other narratives in the distant future. It remained a good way to rattle the cup even after it was wedded to the other narratives. Now that, is fucking resilience...cause some of the rest of this shit is booooooring.

Indeed. Makes you wonder why the message resounds: You'll never be good enough, you shouldn't try. I wonder what that says about people?

At any rate, them who wrote it knew their craft.

(July 20, 2014 at 8:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Nows a good time to remind everyone that my cup is rattling.....gimme mah kudos.

You are one shameless sonofabitch, Rhymey.

(July 20, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think that people who had no idea what evolution was could have ever intended to write an allegorical account of evolution.....it's an allegorical account -of the human experience- as experienced, by the originators of the tale and their intended audience.

Not Human Experience - it is the human ability to create Fiction

Which is powerful for the way it allows us to explore our experiences from the relative safety of fantasy. Somebody clearly didn't get enough beddy-by stories as a kid...lol. Of course it's fiction Thom - there's a dragon in it, and a witch doctor to boot, pretty much seals the deal. There would have been no way for anyone to have written a non-fiction story about some adam and some eve and their dealings with the god of the garden. Believers expect too much from this story (or any of them) and in doing so they fail to appreciate a good lie for what it is. I don't see why you have to.

(July 20, 2014 at 8:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @Jenny

Quote:2) an explanation for the lower status of women that I have to take a deep breath and count to ten before I can look at it any other way.

It was Eve that had the balls to take the first bite. Adam was timid as a churchmouse. I'd say she's the "aggressor" in the relationship, definitely wearing the pants (that they were subsequently gifted with)...lol. He's the quiet conniver, the child that doesn't prevent misbehavior, but is quick to blame his fellows when caught. Maybe he should have stood up to god right there and then. All around he seems, to me, to be a sad sort of archetype for a man (even if he might be a realistic one).

No, no, when a woman's the aggressor, she's hen-pecking.

Speaking of archetypes, want to tackle Cain and Abel next? That story always pissed me off because I couldn't figure out why god liked Able better to begin with. Any reasonable parent or god would have smiled kindly on both offerings even if he secretly liked one better than the other.

Come to think of it, brotherly jealousy is a theme in the OT. There's Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and all his brothers, David's brothers weren't so thrilled with him either. Ham you can do with Noah's Ark, but his real problem is that his brothers told on him.

Moses and Arron is the only good brotherly relationship I can think of. All the rest are fighting over fatherly approval.

Because the narrator was a shepherd. I'll definitely do that one. Cain and Abel is social commentary dressed as a foundational legend. My favorite line in the bible is spoken by Cain. The most honest question ever asked - by a character very much maligned..lol. Probably won't get to it tonight though.