To Brovus and Molly

The difficulty in addressing both of your comments is that according to the agreed upon criteria for interpretation I am limited as to what I can say. To remain within the confines of what we are reading (Ch 1-4) I still can extract this much from the text:

Was the serpent evil? That depends on how we define it? As I read the text, the Serpent seemed to undermine the words of God, thus casting doubt on his words. This came from the Serpent and not Eve or Adam ... it was external to man but within the snake. Thus Eve makes the statement that the snake deceived her (v. 13). I would say that the snake sinned or disobeyed God or did wrong because the result of his actions was to be cursed (v. 14). I take this to mean that he did something that he was not supposed to have done ... therefore, I coclude that his actions/questions leading up to this point were malicious in their intention and so sinful in nature. Notice that the LORD curses the snake, but only cuses the ground and not Adam or Eve. I take this to mean that the Serpents actions were far greater than those of Adam and Eve. Later we read that Cain is cursed because he kills his brother. He is cursed because he did the action.

With the limitation of the reading I would not say that GOD DID THIS. Clearly by the text Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and so they, by their own fruition, sinned against God. At this point my understanding of "sovereignty" is that God is the author of life thus he has the fre reign to create it or to take it away.

To Molly's comment about eternal life. I would argue that there is no textual evidence to support that Adam and Eve would die if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit, rather, I think that the text leads one to conclude that if they don't they should continue to live ... forever. I also gather this from the comment that if they had eaten from the tree of life that they would have lived forever (v. 22) ... a good question would be, but in what state? I think they would have lived forever in their fallen state and not their glorified state. They were allowed to eat the fruit from this tree of life prior to the fall for only one tree had restrictions (v. 16-17), thus I have every inclination to think that they would have lived forever.

A Response

I suppose I ought to respond to Belthshazzar’s comments, since he responded to mine. In this exercise, I don’t mean to call God a liar, no more than I intend to convince myself that the universe was created in 6 days. You see, I am approaching the text as one who is hoping to find meaning, clarity and understanding. If I read that God told Adam and Woman they would “surely die” if they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and I read that they eat from it, and I read that they don’t immediately keel over, my first thought is ‘why not?’ not, ‘God is a liar.’

In addition I have to be suspicious of the statement that “Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die.” Belthshazzar is making the assumption that if they had not eaten of the tree, they would live forever, never knowing death. This is not suggested by the text. We’re never told that eternal life is God’s intention for Adam and Woman. In fact as we’ll see later, the generations that proceed from them and from Cain and Abel lived inordinately long lives. Thus, I don’t think it’s logical to assume that God simply stayed their sentence till the time of their death.

Finally I’ll make one last comment about the nature of my post. Of course I don’t mean to make God out to be a liar. And of course I hope that my faithfulness to him with flavor all that I read and study in these pages. But if I am to make a serious study of scripture, then I can’t let my assumptions about God change the way I read the Word. Should I let my image of God characterize the way I read scripture? Or should what I read in scripture characterize God?

The Mystery of Iniquity

Daniel, why do you see the Serpent in opposition to God? Are you suggesting that the Serpent had an independent will working against God? You say that believing the Serpent means making God out to be a liar? But how is it that the Serpent, a creation of God, can be working against God, for purposes other than God's? Is your presupposition that the Serpent is evil and God is good? The text never tells us the moral nature of the Serpent, we only know that he is cunning and later punished by God for his actions. The problem is that the Serpent is a creation of God, and unless you argue that the Serpent had a free will, the logical conclusion would be that God made the Serpent evil, thus making God the author of evil and complicit in the actions of the Serpent and the fall of man. This seems to be the logical conclusion of the Sovereignty of God as defined by Calvin: that God is, in fact, the author of evil. Tillich writes that Calvin, like Augustine, believed that God created light and darkness, that He formed good and evil, and that no evil occurs which He has not performed. Calvin believed that God shows His glory in the scene we call the world. In order to do this, He (God) causes evil, even moral evil.

If the Serpent is an agent of God, causing mankind to sin, then God's punishment is absurd. But if the Serpent and Mankind are operating as free agents, then there is no Catch 22, because they are ultimately free to obey God, but they choose otherwise and are subsequently held responsible.

raj

A Response to the Previous Posts

I have some comments that I would like to voice concerning the previous posts ...

"Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God"

They can be faulted because they had all that they needed to know. God was not withholding vital information from them that suspended their moral obligation to obey him. He told them, "Don't eat." That was and should always be enough. The problem comes in, when we are not satisfied with that answer. Why? We want to "know" more.

In fact if you compare Gen 2:9 with 3:6 they both say "good for food," and "pleasant to the eyes" but 3:6 adds "to be desired to make one wise." It was not appetite nor beauty that drew Eve, but the desire for "wisdom" or "knowledge." She wanted to know something that was not for her to know. We can all identify ... think of a time when some authority made a decision without consulting you. They tell you what to do and what is our response? "Why?" Or have they ever made a decision with which you disagreed and they would not tell you why they did so? Does not that tick you off? Why ... because we want to be "in the know." We think the more we know the better off we are. I am not advocating a compaign for total ignorance, but there is evil that we are not intended to know. We want to know, because we are the children of Eve ... we want to be like God.

Think of it. We don't like the answer "Because I said so." It is a vulnerable place to be. This means that we have to trust the person on the basis of what they know and who they are, not on what we know or who we are. Adam and Eve had no reason not to trust God's words. They had the rest of the Garden to prove that he was a benevolent and life-giving God. It was the unknown that they wanted to know.

"did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil?"

Whether they did or did not is not the point. They had all that they needed. The "fall" was that they did not believe this. They wanted more. They wanted something that was not given to them. Thus they did not trust God for their all ... they decided to take matters into their own hands. DISOBEDIENCE ... pure and simple. "Do not eat of the tree" is pretty straight forward. If they can name animals, I am sure they can discern what "do not eat" means.

As to Crazy Mollies comment ... I think one is stepping on dangerous territory with this:

"What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE."

By making this statement you are saying that the Serpent was telling the truth and that God was lying. Think about that. Do you really mean call God a liar? Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die. It was on the basis of his mercy that they were not immediately destroyed.

I think we ought to focus on what God was doing (and not doing) in this story. How merciful of God to sustain our life even when we disobey. How kind of God to make provision for us so that we may receive life and not be cast out forever. How good of God. How good He is.

Catch 22?

Let me just start by saying that you guys are all blowing my mind grapes. Perhaps the purpose of the talking serpent is not an allusion to Narnia or a claim that devil animals may have had the power of speech nearer to the dawn of time. Perhaps it is meant to suggest, rather, that the temptation to disobey comes from an external source foreign to the essence of humans. More specifically it comes from the beast, traversing the boundary that separates humans from animals. The subsequent struggle throughout history between Godliness and rebellion is here defined in terms of humaneness verses beastliness. Here, beastliness does not refer simply to the nature of animals, but to the nature of monsters, which I will define ad hoc as non-humans posing a threat to human life.
That said, I love how truly crafty the serpent's approach really is. The first thing that the serpent does to the Woman is to imply a question through the explicit suggestion, which is an exaggeration of the truth. Check it: "Did I understand that God told you not to eat from any tree in the garden?" The implicit questions that the serpent can expect the Woman to pose to herself are as follows, 1. "Wouldn't it suck if God had forbidden you to eat from any tree in the garden?" 2. "Is the restriction of two trees qualitatively different from i.e. more just than the restriction of all trees?" This is brilliant! The Woman's internal thought process is probably similar to my own. To the first implicit question, I would answer, "yes, if God were to restrict all the trees, it would be unfair." This first implicit question serves to introduce the very concept of unfairness, and furthermore unfairness on the part of God. To the second implicit question, I would think, "Maybe the restriction of two trees is unfair. I need time to work that question out." Before the Woman had time to work that out, the serpent strikes with the statement contradicting God's statement, "you will not surely die. [God lied to you to prevent you from threatening his power]." Ultimately, the woman and the man bet against God. What were their motivations? Ironically, Eve may have felt she needed fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in order to work out implicit question 2. Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?
If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God. We, on the other side of paradise, judge our progenitors for having sided with evil, but we assume they should have known better as a prerequisite for their humanity. Did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree? If so, they chose evil after really or potentially having identified it as such. If the knowledge of good and evil was not inherent to the first man and woman, then there was only one way to find out whether the serpent was trustworthy or not. The man and woman did learn something after eating the fruit, but it was not that disobedience was a mistake, but rather that their nakedness was worthy of shame. Is this the same as realizing that nakedness is evil? We can see from God's words in Gen. 3:22 that the fruit did indeed transform the knowledge of humans, "God said, 'The Man has become like one of us, capable of knowing everything ranging from good to evil." Did God set up a catch 22 by restricting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? I echo Crazy Molly's question about the supposedly fatal consequences of eating the fruit of good and evil. If Adam and Eve were immortal while in the garden, then why was the tree of life restricted? They seem to have always been destined to surely die, whether eating from the tree of knowledge or not.
It would not surprise me if this story were intended to reveal to us our own affinity for earnest questions as the key to human nature. We love posing questions that we honestly do not know the answer to. I tend to dislike the serpent because he seems to have posed questions to which he already knew the answers, or did he? Did the serpent ask these questions in earnest, just as surprised to get his and the humans' butts kicked by God as a result of eating the forbidden fruit? Just like any other tool, I think questions are good when asked out of genuine curiosity and bad when used as instruments of coercion and manipulation. "The serpent seduced me, and I ate."

Was the Serpent all that bad?

It’s very strange to think of creatures dwelling among humans and conversing with them in a way we’d understand. I’m a vegan, so presumably I’m one of those who have utmost respect for animals (or ‘non-human animals’ as some of my more radical veggie brethren would phrase it). Yet even with that respect comes a certain arrogance that we men and women are special in certain ways—created in God’s image, able to speak in complex language that vary according to geography and culture, able to discern the realities of an omniscient God and the concept of the human spirit, and the ability to tell right from wrong.

So to hear about a serpent who was “more crafty than any other beast” and who could cunningly ask “Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?” understandably encourages skepticism in the non-contemporary reader. I think the absurdity (Raj described it as fantasy) of a talking snake has led many Christians to suggest that the serpent is actually Satan. Daniel referenced this. I don’t see any evidence for this however. I think it’s weird but fair to assume that the serpent is indeed a talking creature. Perhaps things were very different in Eden.

What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE. Not in the physical sense anyway. Perhaps their innocence has died, or their special relationship with God, or their naturally symbiotic relationship with the earth and its creatures. But in the simple, life vs. death manner of thinking, Adam and his wife do not surely die.

Would you rather die or be a paradisiacal refugee?

The Serpent

Raj, I had never thought about approaching the serpent scenario as a "good" event. Meaning, what was there about the Serpent that should have made Adam and Eve think "this is bad?" Everything that was made was good ... why not this. The only thing that I can think of is that this is the first time that a contradiction enters into their life. God said not to eat it or one will die. The serpent says that I can eat it and that I won't die. Which one is true? But didn't God make the serpent, so wouldn't his words follow in line with him being a "good" creation of God? There is certainly a load of background info that is conspicuously absent. If you think about it ... reading it as best you can as though you have little background info (as hard as it is) WHERE IN THE WORLD DID SUCH A CREATURE COME FROM THAT OPPOSES THE CREATOR?

I don't find the thought of him being intelligent difficult to comprehend. After all, what WASN'T new to Adam and Eve? Everything they saw, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled was new. And who taught them how to speak? Somehow they were endowed with immediate intellectual faculties that gave them language, motor, and reason abilities. They did not "grow" in some sense, yet they did (since there were things that they did not know). I wonder if reading Job before hand would give some insights (many scholars believe this is the first book written in the Bible).

The Serpent

Daniel, you're a beast! Good questions!!! This shows your committment to this process, and I am inspired by the depth of your inquiry. I will try to wrestle with each of your questions.
First, the Serpent. When I read about the Serpent in the beginning of chapter three, I am immediately caught off guard. It seems and feels fantastical. A talking snake! I think it is important to note that the Serpent not only speaks, as opposed to a talking parrot, but appears to be sentient and capable of reasoning. Simply put, the Serpent is intelligent. The notion of a Serpent with human-like cognitive ability is disturbing, and certainly challenges my reading of the text. I feel as though I have entered a parable or an Aesop fable. It is difficult to take this literally.
I immediately ask myself: What does the existence of the Serpent tell me about God? It remains to be seen whether the God of Genesis is in fact omnipotent and omniscient. I admit, I come to the text wanting to believe these things about God....but the Serpent, in a way, also instills doubt into the reader about the nature of God. Chapter 3 begins by saying that "the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." The implication here is that God made the serpent more cunning. In this context, it seems to refer to "the serpent" in plural. It's crazy to think of all these crafty, sneaky little snakes running amuck in the Garden of Eden. but we are then immediately introduced to one serpent in particular. The word "cunning" is peculiar, especially if we believe that God made the Serpent so. At this point, we could certainly raise questions about the inteligence of animals before the Fall. Was this Serpent the only talking, reasoning animal in the Garden??
Finally, if God made the Serpent more cunning, why does being "cunning" mean questioning God's authority....and does it have to mean this necessarily? What were the Serpent's intentions? And where did those intentions come from? and why do the Serpent's intentions seem subversive?
Adam and Eve seem like pawns in this entire scenario. If God made all things good, what reason would they have to not trust the Serpent? Why does God create a cunning creature that is in the business of royaly fucking things up?? This also raises the question of free will? The Serpent seems to be a free agent, scheming against God and humanity? But why and how? This is a mystery.

raj

Gen 3:1-7

• Why was the serpent “more crafty than any other beast?” What was it about the serpent that made it more crafty? Was it the serpent? Or is this a euphemism for the Satan?
• Notice the serpent doesn’t even introduce himself. He just opens the conversation with a question. Questions are dangerous for they can sow seeds of doubt. “Did God actually say …?” How many times have we justified or excused our actions with the morally numbing, “did God actually say …?” Certainly God said, “You shall not eat of any tree in the garden,” but what the serpent seems to suggest is, “Did God really mean what he said?” Is he trustworthy? Does his yes mean yes and no, no? … Are questions morally neutral?
• Why does the serpent speak with Eve? Why not Adam? After all he seems to be there by the context in verse 6, “and she gave some [fruit] to her husband who was with her.” Why Eve?
• Why does Eve add, “neither shall you touch it …?” Did God say this and it was not added before, or was this a misinterpretation on her part? Or did Adam fail to communicate this to her, after all, God spoke the dietary law to Adam when Eve had had been created (2:16:17).
• The serpent starts with a question and then follows with a statement. What if he had gone the other route? “You will not surely die …” this would have been a blatant offense to God’s words. Yet it appears that the initial question stuns Eve enough to miss this affront to God’s words.
• “Your eyes will be opened.” If we were to take a survey on the street, I think most people would agree that having your eyes opened to an issue is a ‘good’ thing. People want to be enlightened rather than left in the dark. Though some people say that ignorance is bliss … I think Adam and Eve would have agreed in retrospect. But was this true? The serpents words assume that their eyes were both ‘closed’ in some form and that this was a ‘bad’ thing.
• “You will be like God” Where they not already made in his image? What more did they need to be ‘like God?’
• “Knowing Good from Evil” What did they know before they ate the fruit? Did they not know good? Did they simply know good but not evil?
• When the woman saw that the tree was
  o Good for food
  o A delight to the eyes
  o Desired to make one wise
  Earlier in 2:9 the author wrote “the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.” Eve recognized these two God given characteristics about the fruit, but she saw something else … it was able to “make one wise.” So, is this good?
• At what point did Eve and Adam sin? When she “desired” the wisdom? “Took” the fruit? “Ate” the fruit? or “Gave some to her husband?” Their eyes were not “opened” until they had both eaten. Why then? Why after the action and not after the “heart” action?
• Are we not supposed to want wisdom? Who wants to be ignorant or stupid? Certainly not I. But this passage seems to insinuate that there is some form of “wisdom” or “knowledge” that is forbidden, that is, it is not good to know. What knowledge ought we not to know? If we say that we know, are we not then guilty for having known this? In WWII one of the tricks of the Gustapo and Nazis to catch runaway POW’s or American spies was to casually insert an English phrase in the dialogue to see how the interlocutor would respond. “Have a safe Trip.” Inadvertently, some would respond with perfect English, “Thank you.” In so doing they would blow their cover. So, if we know what we ought not to know we demonstrate that we are guilty, no? Though some could play ignorant.
• But again, this is an important question since our whole conversation is based on seeking knowledge … the “Dialogical Synod for the Pursuit of Truth” as Raj and I have called it. But is there some truth that we are not to know?
• Eve and Adam did learn something at that point … they did know something … they “knew that they were naked.” At this point, they were aware of their shame.
• What does it mean to feel shame … to be ashamed? We all feel shame … Is this what we are not to know? How then do we cleanse our ashamedness? The world says, don’t be ashamed about your nakedness … flaunt it. Embrace your nakedness. They cover their shame with lies. Just as Adam and Eve attempted to cover themselves with their own “lies” … and so religion is birthed – man attempting to exonerate himself by his own doings.
• What is nakedness? Societies had differed as to what constituted nakedness, yet all agree that some category of nakedness (or inappropriateness) exists. What did Adam and Eve see as “naked?” They sowed loin clothes … what about “Eve’s breasts?”
  
  This is a good stopping point for me … I’ve got to head out. I’d love to hear your responses.
  
  

The Next Two Chapters: Genesis 3 and 4

It does feel time to move on to the next two chapters. Let's read and discuss Genesis 3 and 4 these next two weeks. I have a feeling there will be much to discuss.

raj

On Work Too

I must politely interject with your comment about work. Correct, the word "work" is not used (that is depending on what translation though) for it is Hebrew and so the actual word is abad (work) and shamar (keep). Each of these words has a range of meaning: abad - to work, serve, labour,work for another, etc. and shamar -to keep, guard, observe, give heed, etc. So before you say that the word "work" is not used you ought to check some other translations since the word 'work' is used in the ESV and NIV.

I understand your concern though with using the term "work"for indeed it does carry with it a western concept that scews the Eden interpretation ... I'm glad you brought it up.

Something that is facinating about the word "work" is that the word for slave or servant is ebed (they share the same root). In fact the word abad is overwhelmingly used most as "servant" (Gen 9:25-7; 12:16; 14:4 over 200 occurances). I take this to mean that we are to "work" the land as servants of the land. Not that the land owns us, but that we are authorized to tend the land but we are never its sole owner, the supreme landlord if you will. This brings a different slant to our work of "subduing" and having "dominion" over the land.

It makes me have to really define my terms clearly ... or should I say ... biblically. Or in other words, we are called to"work" the land as servants

On Work

"Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it." Genesis 2:15 It is important to note that the word "work" isn't actually used here. The words are "tend" and "keep." But if we insist on saying that God ordained man to work, as I've heard so many theologians and preachers say, we must ask the question, what is meant by "work?" In 2:5, we do read that there was no man to till the ground...." but again, i think this word "work" is problematic, because of the biases it carries. If I ask myself the question, "why do I work?" the answer would be simple: I work primarily to earn capital so I can pay for my expenses and pay off my debts. Furthermore, I work to make enough money to afford certain extravagances that enhance the quality of my life, like books and flims. And finally, I work to give what I can to those in need, and to secure my (and perhaps one day my family's) financial future. It has always been my hope to do work that I believe brings glory to God and that is in line with the teachings of Christ, but in a society where market values rule and success is measured economically, this is a serious challenge, and consquently, earning income will always trump God-glorifying work.
When Genesis speaks of Adam tending and keeping the garden, it would not be proper to speak of "work" in the sense that I've just described. God provided all of Adam's needs. It was not imcumbent upon Adam to exploit his resources in order to earn income, in order to survive. "And God said, 'See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields sees, to you it shall be for food." Gen 1:29.
If, as Mykal has pointed out, God created all things in harmony, and originally nothing was meant to survive at the expense of life, how are we to understand "work?" (this is related to the "defecation question," because one could ask, "was there any "waste" in the garden of eden?) If you solely define "work" as labour, then yes, you could argue that "tending" and "keeping" imply "work." But because this is a context in which there is no negative value placed on "work," that is that work in the Eden was not exploitive as it is now, we must be cautious when saying that God ordained "work."

raj

The "Red Button" Tree

I can relate to Duke's question ... why even have a tree of knowledge of good and evil? And even then ... why put it in the garden ... why not outside the garden? It is like the red button scenario ... "you can push all the buttons, but that big red button ... whatever you do don't push that one ... right there ... that red one ... you know the one that is flashing 'push me' ... but don't push it."

Why would God do this? Certainly he had his reasons. I don't think it was unintentional, nor do I think he was doing a sick joke. I wonder if after making this tree he "saw that it was good" ... or good and evil?

Chapter 2
The day God "rests" is the day that the world ceases to exist. So God's 'rest' is still active ... no longer in the realm of creating but in sustaining. I find it intreguing as well that this is the first thing that God makes holy ... not an object but a span of time ... the seventh day.

God spoke creation into existence ... but he "formed" man from the dust and "breathed into" man. We are but dust and divine breath ... body and spirit ... it is facinating that we are sustained by eating 'dust' and by breathing. To cease from eating or to quit breathing would kill us ...

Everytime we inhale ... it is as though God is breathing into our nostrils and sustaining our life. With every inhale we acknowledge his divine exhale

"you shall surely die" ... did Adam know what this was? What was death to him when all that surrounded him was life. Was there any models for him to comprehend what 'death' was? Or did he simply understand because God granted it to him? This is the first time that 'death' is spoken of in the Bible ... death comes by disobedience. The only thing that Adam had was God's Word ... he had no written law, nothing was codified or systematized ... it was purely based on 'what God said.' This is important to note ... anticipating the next chapter.

Eldridge brings out an intersting point ... man was made not in the garden but in the wilderness ... while Eve was made in the garden. Man is by nature 'wild at heart' ... I can see this both in the text and in life. Not only that, but man was made to work ... in fact, one of the first jobs Adam has is naming the animals. Think about it ... whatever you called it is what it would be ... how did he do that? Did he randomly fuse sounds together? And to think that he remembered all there names (I am assuming he was not deficient in this capacity).

"it is not good that man should be alone" ... yet the next verses are not God making Eve!!!! Instead he puts Adam to work naming the animals. Why the insertion of zoology? Why not go straight to the formation of woman? Notice that Adam never noticed his lonliness ... it was God who made this observation. In the midst of his work though he noticed something ... the other animals had pairs, but there was no suitable helper for Adam. It was in his obedience and work that Adam became aware of "something not quite right." I find this passage encouraging to me ... that my focus should be on obeying God and not chasing after a wife to "complete" me ... in time, I believe the Lord will bring us together as He brough Adam and Eve together. Meanwhile I've got work to do ... no literally, I have to go to work now. Much more to say, but work is calling me ... maybe I'll meet my future wife today? Doubtful since I work in a junkyard!

Couple of verses

I read these two chapters of Genesis and these are the verses that stuck in my mind.

Gensis 1:30...And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherin there is life, I have given green herb for meat: and it was so...

The transformation from herbivore to carnivore is interesting. The fall of Adam and Eve made quite a physical transformation on the initial creation plan, (shaping of teeth, digestive tracts, etc...)

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is curious to me. Why does this tree exist???

2 questions for Belteshazzar:

1. Whether there was or was not defecation in Eden aside, what would the absence or presence of poop in Paradise implicitly tell us about God and Creation?

2. Same question, but replace "defecation" with "sex".

What are the theological implications of these two elements in Paradise? I suggest that we read on through the next two chapters in Genesis.

Does eating imply defecation?

As I read some of the posts I had to wonder ... it is difficult to speculate this side of the fall. Our bodies, though most likely still quite similar, could have functioned more efficiently than they currently do. This was the case in aging for sure ... imagine living for nearly a millennium! It would be like me reminiscing about the atrocities of the Crusades!

So, my question is, "Does eating imply defecation?" I don't think it is too hard to believe that Adam and Eve's bodies worked so efficiently that whatever they ate was completely consumed and transformed into usable energy (hence no waste).

And about sexual intercourse. One problem I see is that if sex was intended for procreation, and that Adam and Eve had loads of sex ... why did she never get pregnant? Was it defective ... certainly not. The first time it is spoken of that she gets pregnant is after the fall. So either they never had sex or they had sex but it never produced what it was intended to do.

In thinking about the presence of sexual intercourse in Eden, I'm struck my Adam's contribution that "true pleasure has to do with engaging in a task that we love to do because we know profoundly that we are doing it very well."

Without getting too graphic, I question why intercourse couldn't fall into that category. In examining mere physiology (assuming the sexes have remained physically identical to their premogenitors), we see that Man and Woman were uniquely and thoughtfully created for each other's bodies. Thus, is it not fair to conclude that intercourse can be a thing in which Man & Woman took immense pleasure, as they could love the fact that were designed to do it and did it very well?

I'm inclined to think that intercourse WAS present, it WAS enjoyable, and it WASN'T sinful. As for the Man's genitals being some kind of limb that he could order about at will, as the only woman currently contributing to the blog at this time, allow me to say, 'Ew.'

Working on a sex farm?

I appreciate Raj's comments on excrement and sexual pleasure, not only because I find his affinity for bathroom topics refreshing, but also because I think the line of questioning here is on track with the spirit of paleotheology. What was a typical day in the life of Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden? Giving Genesis 1 and 2 a second reading after having written a first response, I noticed for the first time in my reading of Genesis that Adam's purpose in the Garden of Eden involved work! Gen. 2:15 "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it." It seems that Adam was to be dedicated to some agricultural tasks in the Garden. Furthermore, if God thought that Adam needed a suitable helper, for what was she destined to help if not with some work?
Krista Tippet, in her show on National Public Radio called "Speaking of Faith," recently interviewed Jean Vanier (the founder of the Le'Arche movement that integrates communities of able-minded and mentally disabled people), who commented briefly on Aristotle's concept of pleasure. To paraphrase Jean Vanier: [Pleasure for Aristotle is not the kind of pleasure we normally think about, in other words, it does not have to do with sort of goofing around. True pleasure has to do with engaging in a task that we love to do because we know profoundly that we are doing it very well.] In light of Jean Vanier's comments on Aristotle, it makes perfect sense that if there is pleasure in Paradise, there should also be work to do. If Adam and Eve had work to do in Paradise, they ought to have somehow taken pleasure in their work. Indeed, God himself ended each day by admiring his own handiwork and blessed and sanctified the seventh day because he "rested from all the work that he had done in creation." If Adam and Eve were indeed dedicated to some agricultural tasks in the Garden, and there was no poop, I wonder what they were to have used for fertilizer.
As for sexual intercourse, I don't think that chapter 2 explicitly resolves the question of whether there was any in the Garden of Eden. The comment that "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh," could go either way. The story of the sixth day, however, demonstrates God's will for male and female humans that they, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it." I am not sure whether we the readers are meant to synthesize the story of The Seven Days of Creation and the story of The Garden of Eden. I will not assume, for the purposes of this theological excavation, that God's words of blessing imply that there was sexual intercourse in the Garden of Eden. In my opinion, I do think that there was a whole lotta love in the Garden of Eden because, as we learned from Thor Heyerdahl and his Jungle Princess, a reasonably sized Garden (containing the mother of all rivers) even with all the animals and two human mouths to feed, does not require a whole lot of tilling. Agriculture, as opposed to hunting/gathering or pastoral means of food production, is usually necessary to accommodate larger, city-building societies i.e. civilizations. Adam and Eve were almost certainly, in the lyrical words of Spinal Tap's rock legend, Nigel Tuffnel, "working on a sex farm." Perhaps I simply prefer to believe that Adam and Eve were extremely busy in more ways than one because that is my personal bias.
If we should conclude from reading Genesis 1 and 2 that both work and sex were part of God's original intention for Creation, how does that affect the way that we conceptualize God, work, and sex? If we were to say that neither work nor sex were part of the Garden, then what would that imply about our concept of God, work, and sex?

Sex and Defecation in Paradise

Several years ago, Daniel's dad asked me if I thought Adam and Eve defecated in Paradise. I didn't know how to respond. I then remember him telling me that there were theological implications to whether or not they emptied their bowels in Paradise. I think his argument was that defecation implied death, and that this was problematic because there was no death before the Fall. I'm not sure whether or not defecation implies death, perhaps Mykal can help me out with this.

Several years later, I would come upon this topic again in Milan Kundera's book, "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Kundera writes, "When I was small and would leaf through the Old Testament retold for children and illustrated in engravings by Gustave Dore, I saw the Lord God standing on a cloud. He was an old man with eyes, nose, and a long beard, and I would say to myself that if He had a mouth, He had to eat. And if He ate, He had intestines. But that thought always gave me a fright, because even though I come from a family that was not particularly religious, I felt the idea of a divine intestine to be sacrilegious.

Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, as a child, grasped the incompatibility of God and shit and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely, that man was created in God's image - and God has intestines! - or God lacks intestines and man is not like Him.

The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the great Gnostic master, Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus 'ate and drank, but did not defecate.'

Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The responsibility for shit, rests entirely with Him, the Creator of man.

In the fourth century, Saint Jerome completely rejected the notion that Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse in Paradise. On the other hand, Johannes Scotus Erigena, the great ninth-century theologian, accepted the idea. He believed moreover, that Adam's virile member could be made to rise like an arm or a leg, when and as its owner wished. We must not dismiss this fancy as the recurrent dream of a man obsessed with the threat of impotence. Erigena's idea has a different meaning. If it were possible to raise the penis by means of a simple command, then sexual excitement would have no place in the world. The penis would rise not because we are excited but because we order it to do so. What the great theologian found incompatible with Paradise was not sexual intercourse and the attendant pleasure; what he found incompatible with Paradise was excitement. Bear in mind: There was pleasure in Paradise, but not excitement.

Erigena's argument holds the key to a theological justification (in other words, a theodicy) of shit. As long as man was allowed to remain in Paradise, either (like Valentinus' Jesus) he did not defecate at all, or (as would seem more likely) he did not look upon shit as something repellent. Not until after God expelled man from Paradise did He make him feel disgust. Man began to hide what shamed him, and by the time he removed the veil, he was blinded by a great light. Thus, immediately afer his introduction to disgust, he was introduced to excitement. Without shit, (in both the literal and figurative senses of the word), there would be no sexual love as we know it, accompanied by pounding heart and blinded senses."

raj

Re: Moses Authorship

By virtue of this exercise/experiment, I cannot be certain about the authorship of Genesis at this point. based on the first two chapters, the text does not allow me to be conclusive....therefore I cannot be for or against your claim that moses is the sole author. Because I have decided to stick to the mechanisms we have all agreed upon, I cannot respond completely to your argument. I am committed to only responding to the content with an open mind....and responding to others that are also responding to and trying to make sense of the content at hand. I think your arguments are interesting, but let's do the best we can to stick to the text and not jump ahead, so we're all, literally, on the same page. I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on chapter two.

I love you, daniel

raj

On the Seventh-Day

In Genesis 2: 2-3 we read, "And on the seventh-day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh-day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh-day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."

Earlier I noted that the seventh-day is the first thing that God sanctifies, and I wondered what the difference was between blessing something and sanctifying it. The hebrew word for blessing here is "barak", which means invoking divine favor. The hebrew word for sanctified is "qadas", which means to be made holy, to be made sacred, to be consecrated, and furthermore, to be set apart.

In a convesation with Adam, he noted that God blesses the animals and humans as a precursor for propogation. In Gen 1:22 it reads "And God blesses them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.'" And then in Gen 1:28 it reads, "Then God blessed them [the humans] and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.....'"
In this context, God's blessing seems to mean that it is favorable to Him that both animals and humans propogate...that the earth may be filled with His creatures.

The sanctification of the seventh-day seems to go beyond a mere blessing to that which is solely sacred and holy. The seventh-day is, in fact, the first divine institution that landmarks God's work of creation. It is set apart to forever commemorate that He is the Creator of the world, and that He is, as Mykal said, "behind all that we see in the heavens and on earth." And the seventh-day, like everything else God creates, has a purpose.

It is a wonder why so many Christians downplay the importance of keeping the Sabbath on the seventh-day. I don't see how an earnest Christian, seeking to be biblical, can ignore it's significance. but perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm sure this topic will come up again.

raj

Genesis Chapter 1

The first thing that strikes me about Genesis chapter
1 is that it is not a scientific treatise on the
fundamentals of creation. Rather it is formatted in a
story like fashion that gets a general idea across;
that someone or something greater than ourselves (God)
is behind all that we see in the heavens and on earth.
Since there is a greater being responsible for our
existence, I gain a sense of purpose and sacredness to
all life on earth. If God spent a whole day creating
the fish in the sea, he has a purpose for them. The
trees and mountains likewise have a purpose. Man, the
crowning work of God’s creation, has a purpose. In the
study of ecosystems around the earth, it is very
apparent that life in general is dependent upon the
intricate balance of hundreds, or perhaps, thousands
of living and nonliving factors all working together
in harmony. Genesis chapter 1 speaks to me themes of
purpose, sacredness and harmony.

On the other hand, the fact that the biblical account
of creation is not very scientific or sequential may
not necessarily negate a literal interpretation. How
many human minds, for example, are capable of
discerning the invisible atom? Certainly the author of
Genesis had no concept that solid matter is composed
of mostly empty space. Even had the author of Genesis
a special insight into the mysterious workings of a
creator, what words could he have used to accurately
describe it? Can we be realistic when we demand the
Genesis account of creation to jive with modern
science? Modern science hasn’t even come close to
understanding what is involved in the creation of even
the simplest of life forms. God creates in a manner
that is wholly illogical and incomprehensible to the
human mind. He speaks and it is so. It seems that
nothing but faith can grasp the whole truth of
creation.

What then is man’s purpose, what should be considered
sacred, how to achieve harmony, these are the
questions genesis chapter 1 raises in my mind. More on
chapter 1 and 2 later.

mykal

Moses Authorship

Good question Raj. Thanks for the challange.

For starters I agree with you in part. Certainly Moses wasn't looking over the shoulder of God and writing down all that was happening ... he wasn't alive yet. But just because he wasn't alive doesn't mean he was not the author. Authors are all the time writing about historical evenents that precede their own genesis. So, yes, he had to have been taught these stories orally/and in written form I'm sure but I believe that Genesis is authored by Moses himself for the following reasons.

First off, just beause the story doesn't "flow" chronologically doesn't negate that it was written by a single author. We then are superimposing our own expectation upon the writing ... ie a single author would write in chronological order. But I think of many stories that are written by authors that start in the midle of the story and then return to the beginning. Or like in the case of Genesis do a summary of an event and then return to unfold specific elements.

Second. There are textual evidences that make me think that Moses wrote the Pentatuch:

Joshua 8:31 ... just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, "an altar of uncut stones, upon which no man has wielded an iron tool." And they offered on it burnt offerings to the LORD and sacrificed peace offerings.

Here "the book of the Law of Moses" referes to a quote from Exodus 20:25, giving evidence that Moses authored at least Exodus (see also 23:6)

Joshua 8:35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.

Here Joshua again talks about reading "all that Moses commanded." So Moses certainly was the author of something. But does this included Genesis ... I'm not sure. There is no obvious evidence

There are other places it speaks of the Book of Moses ... but I will move to the NT

Mat 8:4 And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."

Here Jesus is speaking about Leviticus

Matthew 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"

Here Jesus is speaking about Deuteronomy

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.'

Here Jesus is speaking about Exodus

Mark 10:3-9 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." 5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Here Jesus does not openly say "Moses said this ..." but one could assume that when he asked, "What did Moses command you?" and the response was not complete that Jesus says, this is what God said through Moses in Genesis.

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Here Jesus takes his disciples through what appears to be all the Hebrew scriptures ... ie from Genesis to the end of the Prophets. But Jesus doesn't say Genesis, he says Moses.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Here Jesus divides the Hebrew scriptures up into three sections known as the Tanakh ... the Torah (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). But his statement is not general about "the Torah" instead he states it as authored by Moses. I have never known Genesis to be included in the prophets or writings but always considered part of the Law.

John 7:22-24 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Interesting ... Here Moses is attributed with giving circumcision (but not him but the fathers). I read this to mean that Moses is used as a general term to include the specific. Though he didn't receive the law, he wrote about it in Genesis.

I think this is enough for me to conclude that Moses is the author. If not him ... the scriptures speak of non other. Have any other ideas?

daniel

Re: Paleotheology and Genesis

there has been much debate over the author or authors of genesis. I strain to believe that moses was the sole author, if he was an author at all. this does reveal a bias, daniel, one that I would challenge you on. on what basis do you believe that moses was the sole author of genesis?? I think this is a very important, because I think that many christians hold to this tradition, and it does affect one's reading of the text.
after reading the first two chapters of genesis alone, and considering their contradictions in chronology, it is not apparently obvious that this is coming from one person. if you do believe that the text is Spirit - breathed and has one author, what would be the point of two narratives with conflicting chronologies about the creation of the world, especially if, as many Christians would argue, they were meant to be read and taken literally?? I'm not saying that confliction in chronology negates the meaning of the text or even that it can't be taken literally to some extent, but this is why it is important to stick to the text and not jump ahead based on conclusions that aren't apparent. daniel, I think your claim that moses is the sole author of genesis reveals a bias that you are projecting on the text, and is frustrating your objectivity. much of what we read in genesis was probably passed down as oral tradition, so to say that there is an author at all is problematic. Oral tradition is constantly evolving from generation to generation, and chances are, when it is finally written down, it reads as a mosaic of multiple narratives, not always cohesive. this happens in many other cultures with rich oral traditions. alex was sharing with me a book about the creation myths of the navajo, and because the author's sources were taken from the oral traditions of the navajo, he inevitably ended up with a mosaic of different versions, yes with similar themes, but never exactly the same. what we read in genesis one and two, I argue, rather than from the pen of moses, was most likely a document of an oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. even if moses had some part in the writing of genesis, in what sense was he the author, if he didn't author the content?? but, as I argue, pulled from different oral traditions??

raj

Paleotheology and Genesis

I must admit, that to read Gen 1 and 2 within the confines of those two chapters is constraining, difficult, and to my reckoning not entirely legitamate. I think it is a good excercise, but one could easily misunderstand texts if they limit themselves to only those chapters. I think that one must first discern the context of the text and the intention of the author for sure ... this in mind I think it is important to realize that the same author who wrote chapter one also wrote chapter two and the proceeding chapters. I think this is important because the author is writing from this side of the fall ... he already knows massive amounts of history by the time he begins this pentalogy ... this is of course if we assume the author is Moses ... which I do. I also take the Genesis account to be a dipiction of the workings of God written in the form of ancient literature. We have been influenced by the various "ages" (scientific, enlightenment, etc.) and so our approach to the text may demand information or processes that were obsolete to Moses. I want to be careful not to force the text to tell me more than it is intended to do. Just as Genesis begins with Elohim and his workings ... I want to view all of my interpretations (as best as I can and with the help of the Holy Spirit) focusing on God more than on man. Who is Elohim? What is he doing? Why?

I know I am cheating when I do this, but I cannot help it ... tell me if I am breaking the rules ... I checked out Elohim ... it is facinating to me to note that Gen 1 has the highest concentration of the term Elohim with the book, however within all of the Hebrew Scriptures Deuteronomy contains the most usages of the Elohim. Just a thought. Within Genesis though this is huge. Here more than in any other chapter is the word Elohim used. It is true that it is plural in form however it acts as a singular since the verbs that are connected to it are such. I don't exactly know what to make of this oddity ... plural in form yet singular in action.

God creates light ... but the text never says that he created darkness. It simply was there (like the water). Again, I take the initial "God created the heavens and the earth" to include all things. I say this in part because some Rabbi's hypothesize that following the phrase is an aleph and tav (taeî) which are the first and last letters of the Hebrew language. They believe it is the equivalent to the Greek Alpha and Omega ... ring a bell? In other words it is as though God is saying that he has made averthing from A to Z ... EVERYTHING. With this being said, I don't think that everything has to be spelled out in order for us to conclude that God has created it, thus the water and darkness are covered in the aleph tav conjecture.

One thing that strikes me "in the beginning" is how God creates. This is so different then how we create ... we must use our hands to create (unless we are creating words or sounds), but God by simply speaking calls things into being ... light, earth, birds, fish, animals, etc. There is power in God's speach. When God speaks things happen. This makes me tremble at the thought of such authority.

The separation of waters has often baffled me. I have read it to mean that there was a "sky" lake and land lakes. I don't think that the "sky" lake simply meant the atmosphere as we know it (again I can't help but think of the flood account ... which the author would be aware of). If there were never any rainbows, certainly there must have been a different atmosphere pre-flood. Maybe there was a dense covering of suspended water? I've seen models of it which demonstrated how there would be a more equalized and temperate climate throughout the entire earth. Not sure though.

I have to agree with Raj on the creating light and then creating the sources of light later. I don't understand it unless "light" means more than what is emitted from my light bulb. Maybe it means something like understanding ... you know to be "enlightened?"

I find the parallel of vs 22 and 28 interesting. God blesses the fish and the birds and later blesses man. God tells the fish and the birds to be fruitful and multiply and then later he says the same to man. But what is different is that man is authorized to subdue the earth and have dominion over the fish and birds and animals, thus graduating him to a higher level of responsibility and accountability.

I noticed that most of you comment on the vegan diet of the people ... but this also included the animals too. My problem is not so much with man but with the animals. This indicates that lions, tigers, and bears were omnivours. But they certainly ain't anymore. Are they supposed to change their diets? Again thinking ahead, (though remaining with the same author and book) God tells Noah after the flood that he was to eat the flesh of animals ... how could he have eaten otherwise, everthing was destroyed and was beginning again?

I'll write more on chapter two later,

daniel

Genesis Continued

chapters one and two of genesis seem to be two different narratives. the first narrative starts with genesis 1:1 and ends at genesis 2:4. the first narrative is about the gods creating the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, and humans in the the context of a seven day week, with the Lord God resting on the seventh day, blessing it and sanctifying it. in this narrative there is some confusion of chronology, nevertheless, there is an emphasis on each day of the week. in this narrative the heavens and the earth are created first, then the earth is formed and fashioned with land and sea, and then plants and herbs are created, and then subsequently animals then humans.

in the first narrative, the gods bless everything after they create it and see that it is good...but we read that on the seventh-day, the Lord God not only blesses the seventh-day, but sanctifies it. what is the difference between blessing something and sanctifying it?? the seventh-day is the only thing that the Lord God sanctifies in the narrative. i thought that was very interesting.

the second narrative starts at genesis 2:5 when we read that "before any plant or the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field was grown." this verse is an obvious departure from the previous narrative. however, perhaps the author is making a distinction between plants and herbs created by the gods and plants and herbs cultivated by man. the text goes on to say that there was no man to till the ground.

In this narrative, Man is created first, then the garden, which we read that the Lord God planted, and then the animals, and then finally the woman. in this narrative there is no emphasis on time. we have no idea how much time passes between the creation of man, the garden, the animals, and finally the woman. in this narrative we are given proper names to things, the man is named Adam, the garden is Eden, the rivers are Pishon, Gihon, Ashur, and the Euphrates. and of course, Adam names the animals. also, we are placed in a more specific geographic context: we read of the land of Cush, of Havilah,and east of Assyria or the Tigris. I wonder what the significance of these locations are.


more later,
raj

Genesis 1

after reading the first two chapters of genesis, the first thing that occurred to me is that something very strange is going on. because I am a creation and a product of the world in which I exist, it is impossible to place myself in a context before creation, and all I am left with is the words on the page, my imagination, and the limits of logic and reason.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was a darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the waters."

God. Heavens. Earth. Formless Void. Darkness. Deep. Spirit. Waters. I have been saying these words to myself for the past 24 hours. these words come to me as poetry, and it is not natural to think something purely physical is happening. I read these words knowing that I will encounter them later in Scripture, so I seek for definition. God is plural, Eloyhim. "in the beginning the gods." who are the gods?? I wonder. and where are they before creation?? what are they doing? what is their substance, their form?? "Heavens." the hebrew word here is "shamayim" which refers to both the atmosphere above the earth and the invisible realm of God or the gods. "God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void."
I am tempted to read this chronologically, but I am constantly frustrated. Did the gods create the formless void, or was this the state before the earth was created....and yes, it seems that water either preceded the creation of the earth, or rather that the water was the canvas of the formless void. I do not know.

we read in verse 3 that light and subsequently night and day are created on the first day, yet it is not until day four that the sun, the greater light, and the moon, lesser light are created. how am I to understand the "light" created on the first day? perhaps this is merely repeition....but if that is the case, then this contradicts the chronology of the week, in which creation is unfolding. I don't know how to resolve this, other then to believe that my reading is faulty. I want to read this as literal, but I am faced with the limits of logic. it plainly doesn't make sense....unless that is, something spiritual is happening. "God's spirit is hovering over the face of the waters" my biggest clue is that the seventh-day is made sacred and blessed. this is something purely spiritual, because empirically, there is no difference between saturday and any other day of the week. God making saturday holy is arbitrary, that is, from a scietific perspective. science can't prove or disprove the sacredness of the sabbath. so, perhaps God is both creating physical and spiritual "things." the creation of the sabbath is not physical, but spiritual...that is: sacred and holy.

I also noticed that the diet of both animals and humans is vegan. "I give you all seed-bearing plants....and tress with seed-bearing fruits; this shall be your food." no where does it suggest that humans or animals ate meat or dairy. but then I wonder about the command to be fruitful and multiply. did animals and humans breast feed?? and does being fruitful and multiply imply the sex act??

in gen 1:28, the gods command the male and female to fill the earth and subdue it. what does it mean for humans to subdue the earth? I can only think of "subduing" as something done by force or violence, yet there is no evidence of this in the text. we are told that man's duty is to cultivate the garden and to name the animals. we are seemingly presented with a world where this is no violence, only harmony, because the gods have created everything "good." again, I do not understand. perhaps because the gods have made man in their image, they seek to assert his superiority over the animals....and to subdue means to be a good steward to both the land and to the animals....because man is imbued with something divine....because only man is made in the image of the gods.

more later,
raj

Re: Re: Re: On Paleotheology

Let me start with an explanation that will give some perspective to my approach as a ‘paleotheologist.’ First off, I’m a relatively new believer—about 5 years. This puts me at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to having an extensive knowledge of Scripture or church history. For our purposes however, it seems I have a truly “paleo” vantage point—much of scripture is still new to me. The flipside of this is that I’ve felt, in these years as a Christian, a tendency to take that which is being taught to me about scripture and quickly accept is as the truth in order to make things easy for myself. My thought seems to be “well these people have been Christians for a lot longer than me, they obviously know more about it; I’m just going to take all that they say in faith.” While you gentlemen have had the benefit of many years to independently determine what you believe, I’ve put pressure on myself to figure it all out very quickly. Hopefully this journey we’re embarking on together will help me to take the time to fully see what the Lord is showing me.

Now for Genesis 1-2. What’s clear is that there are limitations to our understanding on several fronts: language- What was “the face of the deep?” (1:2) chronology- Where did the “waters” come from if God hadn’t yet created them? (1:2) the source of the genesis- where did the design for vegetation and trees come from? How did God come up with it? (1:12) and the very nature of God- God sees the light is “good,” but didn’t he know that would be so, since he designed and created it? (1:4)

But even given these limitations, what one can most easily take away is a sense that God gave consideration for all that he was doing. If he had the power to create the world in six days, certainly he would have had even the ability to create it in one. Perhaps he took his time so he could give due consideration for all he was doing.

It was perhaps His care and consideration that caused him to make Man and Woman in his own image. God knew He was God, and knew that an earthly creature created to resemble a god would have certain benefits or be favored in some way. But this raises and interesting question about the differences between men and women. Were they both created in God’s image? 1:27 says so. So what does God look like? Some sort of hermaphroditic cross between a male and a female? Or maybe ‘image’ is not meant in that way, perhaps it’s a reference to Man and Woman’s thought process or emotions rather than their bodies.

What one can see about both their emotions and their bodies though, is that they were made for one another. Woman was created to be, and chosen as, the most suitable “helper” (2:20) for man. But the connection seems to be much more than physical. Man passionately exclaims “this at last is bone of my bones/ and flesh of my flesh” (2:23) as though he had all along been waiting and longing for someone to be with besides God.

But the chronology is very confusing here. Genesis 2 leads us to believe that Man and Woman might have been created after the seventh day and that Man was created before plants (2:5) and before animals (2:18). It also suggests that some time passed between the creations of Man and Woman. But Chapter 1 makes it clear that both Man and Woman were created on the sixth day (1:26), after the creation of animals on the fifth day (1:24), and after plants on the third day (1:11).

I’m not here to find the cracks in Scripture, but I am trying to understand the Bible as a complete beginner might. And if I’m instructed to read Genesis as an accurate account of the beginnings of the earth, it’s imperative that I fully understand the story itself. I'm not sure I can confidently do that with the information I'm given, so I end up settling at "God created the heavens and earth and everything therein."

Caroline

Re: Re: On Paleotheology

First off I must say (surpirsing that I don't have any disagreements with you Raj) that I think the three mechanisms for interpreting the scriptures (hurmneutics) are right on. It took me some time to think about the first one, but I think there is something to be learned by doing this. With this in mind we ought to attempt to read the Bible in chronological order. I have a "Chronological Bible" ... this will assist us in not jumping ahead and using "previous" texts that are still future (i.e. the book of Job is considered the ealiest writing though obviously the story of Genesis occurs first) or failure to use "future" readings that are current with the present passage (i.e. harmonizing Kings Chronicles and the Prophets). Just a thought.

daniel

Re: On Paleotheology

01/04/2008; 01/07/2008


Genesis 1;2

Reading Genesis from "the beginning" for the first time is seriously trippy, like watching a David Lynch film. According to my initial reading from the New Revised Standard Version, God did not create everything out of nothing as is commonly described. This account is a story about someone creating the "heavens and the earth," but not the water. The earth itself before it's "creation" was a "formless void." My interpretation of this English phrase is that the earth, that is the dusty land mass upon which we build our homes, did not exist at all. However, at this same moment, "a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." So, in the beginning, there was water! Water was certainly the only matter or object of visual import to be made visible by light, on the first day.

For me, the second day is probably the most interesting part of chapter 1. The entirety of creation, including the earth, the air, and all heavenly bodies (stars and planets), is contained within a dome that God opens between the waters above and the waters below. I believe that our earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun as part of a larger solar system. The limits of our universe are still inscrutable to the human eye and telescope. The implication of Genesis chapter one, when harmonized with our contemporary cosmology (namely our understanding of outer space), is that our cosmos does not go on forever. Rather, beyond the limits of our universe there is water that, in the beginning, touched the water of our own oceans, lakes, precipitation, faucets, toilets, and our own bodies. For this reason, I would think that water and all that it touches should be considered as sacred, for it is our surest and most primordial link to other living beings and to a world beyond our own.
The other thing that I noticed about this story is that in what I will call "the first account," God brings about creation simply by uttering subjunctive statements, such as "let there be light." In each of six days, God speaks a different phrase starting with "let there . . ." followed by the precipitous appearance of a new reality. If I try to make sense of this story as a human story, since we cannot avoid the notion that we are assigning human traits to God, the best thing that I can come up with is that we are glimpsing inside someone's imagination. Only inside our imaginations can we encounter a field in which discursive thoughts are spontaneously manifested into physical phenomena. Genesis chapter one sets the stage for a conception of our present day reality as being contained within the dream sequence of a person named, "God." As many of us have certainly mused since childhood, perhaps we are figments of someone's imagination. In Genesis chapter 1, that someone is none other than God.

But who is this person? If we consider the impact of Hebrew grammar on the subject of our story, "God," we must first observe that the term for God used here, 'elohiym", can be translated with a plural number and by some estimation could be translated as "gods." This word is sometimes translated plural and sometimes singular, according to Strong's Concordance. If the subject of this story is indeed plural, it behaves within the narrative unlike most other groups of persons with which I am familiar. For even if the many gods are at work in creation, they speak with one single voice. If there were any consensus process happening behind the scenes in the story, it is not revealed to the reader. Reading between the lines, I would imagine that the conversation around the table of the council of the gods went something like this:

god Goldenstein: It's time to create the cosmos. I think we should start by creating light and separating it from the darkness.

god Amoako: You've been saying that all day. I think we should start by creating heat and separating it from the cold. As they say, "smoke comes before fire."

god Davidson: Johnson, there's nothing much to see out here, so why do we need light? And Smith, I'll show you a sweet tai chi workout to improve your circulation. Plus we could save energy simply by wearing more layers. I think we should go ahead and create fish. A: the water is already here and B: we should start with tuna because it is the chicken of the sea.

god Yamaguchi: Is food all you think about?

god Johnson: Larry? Curly? Are you two finished? We don't have all day for your brilliant arguments. There's only one way to settle this . . .

[god Goldenstein wins a paper-rock-scissors tournament]

gods in unison: "Let there be light."

The point of this silly exercise is to illustrate that the 'elohiym of Genesis 1, whether plural or singular-grammatically speaking, is portrayed as one mind.
On the sixth day, God makes every kind of animal as well as humankind, both male and female. God gives humankind "dominion" over the rest of the animals and creepy-crawlies of the earth, after all, they are the ones created in God's own likeness. I could only speculate as to what specific aspects of likeness humankind shares with God. God explicitly gives the edible vegetation and fruits to humankind for food, and every green plant for the food of the animals. God's permission to humankind to take the flesh of animals as food is conspicuously absent. Why, if animals and humans were given the fruits and vegetation to eat, do animals and humans eat one another's flesh?
Besides making statements that affect spontaneous creation, God also uses words to bless creation. God only blesses three times in Genesis 1. God blesses the animals of the sea and birds together, telling them to "be fruitful and multiply." And God blesses humankind, telling them also to "be fruitful and multiply," adding, "fill the earth and subdue it." God also blesses the seventh day and makes it holy, "because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation."

In chapter 2 starting in verse 4, we meet someone named "the Lord God." I don't know what continuity I am supposed to draw between the story of the Garden of Eden and the story of the seven days of creation found in chapter 1. The story of the Garden of Eden is set "in the day when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up." Am I to draw a distinction between the plants and herbs of the field from the vegetation that God created on the third day? If not, we must be in an independent story, since chapter 2 would in that case place the creation of Adam before the sprouting of vegetation (an incongruity with chapter 1). Even if we do read chapter 2 as a flashback to day 6, the form of the story is obviously different. Maybe we are meant to see these two chapters as a collection or canon of insights into the creation. The Lord God of Genesis chapter 2 I imagine to be a giant person, striding over mighty rivers, planting huge trees by hand, and stooping to mold Adam out of dirt and breathe into his lungs, animating the clay miniature by some divine magic. Cradling this groggy Tom Thumb in his hands, the Lord God places Adam in the Garden of Eden like a child putting her doll into the context of a newly constructed play set. But a lone man in a garden is an extremely boring playtime scenario, even with the man's moral dilemma whether to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Lord God formed many strangely shaped playmates for the man, but finally the woman was found to be a suitable counterpart as she was the only one found to be "flesh of my flesh." When he is with her, Adam has possession of his missing rib, both physically and emotionally. This story serves to explain why men and women still pair up today.

Adam

On Paleotheology

brothers and sisters, I have spoken to all of you, and all of you have decided to embark on this quest with me.....the quest to discover the bible and word of god. the more I study theology and church history, the more I get frustrated with the bloodshed, the bickering, the persecution, and the hundreds of interpretations the bible has endured. and I see how much of that exists to this day in one form or another...particularly the bickering.

I heard a quote from tony campolo the other day suggesting that many christians have traded the bible for their interpretations of the bible. I am guilty of this. I admit, I come to the bible with many agendas and biases. and if I am totally honest, I intentionally read things I know will reinforce those agendas and biases.

after hitting many walls in my conversations with daniel, perhaps the person my theology resembles the least in this group, I feel I cannot assume anything anymore. when daniel used certain words such as soul, god, salvation, sovereignty, and death, I couldn't assume that I understood what he meant, and for both of us, it wasn't clear how the Bible defined these things. and I realized that if we were going to make any progress in our study of the Bible and our knowledge of God, we would eventually have to go back to the Bible and let the Word define our theology, and not the other way around.

I came up with the term "paleo-theology," to describe our reading of Scripture, but it turns out that I didn't' come up with the term. I found one other guy on the internet that is thinking along these same lines. His name is brother tadgh. Generally, he defines paleotheology as the study and application of ancient spiritual texts and their associated history. I think this definition is helpful, inasmuch as we to stick to the text, believing that the text itself will reveal it's meaning. of course this means that we will have to get into the hebrew and greek, which I am excited about.

a bit should be said about methodology. the methodology I have described to all of you is a reading of the bible with built-in mechanisms that curtail what's know as "eisigesis" or rather, reading what we want into the bible.

mechanism 1: we stick to the text at hand, without trying to harmonize it with texts that it is dubious the author of the text was aware of. for instance, we cannot use passages in Paul's letters to help us understand Genesis. On the other hand, it is clear that Jesus was reading Isaiah, so we could use Isaiah to understand the Gospels, but not the other way around. get it?

mechanism 2: there must be an emphasis on the original language. much of the difficulties in understanding the bible is through problems and limitations of translation and then interpretation. for instance, when someone asks what the bible says about "Hell." I first must ask what is meant by "Hell," and see if there is a hebrew and greek equivalent to the concept, and then I must consider in what context is that word used. naturally, this will raise the question about what the Bible says about the afterlife and so on.

mechanism 3: by sticking to the text and utilizing the original language, we can then, as a community, keep each other accountable and call each out when we see a creeping agenda that is outside the text. of course, we must be reasonable, and listen to each other carefully and honestly.

adam raised a good point in our conversation the other night. he asked me what justifies this pursuit when so many have walked down the same path. he then concluded that this pursuit is important because no one can do theology for you, it must be done by all of us....to stand naked before the Word of God.

our first assignment is to read the first two chapters of Genesis, in an attempt to read it for the first time....and then to write a response. the blogsite will be up by next week...but let's start the discussion through email.

so, what do you guys think about the first two chapters of Genesis????
raj