A Modern Parable

Originally posted by vistesd
Then YHVH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (Gen 3:22, 23)

Ah, the other tree in the story: etz chaim[ ...[text shortened]... ming for—however you think of God (e.g., as [i]a being, the ground of being, etc.).

I think a modern interpretation of something gained is "work." It was given as their task to work the ground, but it is my experience that modern man needs a purpose and that purpose is often found in work. So it would be my belief that there was a blessing in this curse.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I think a modern interpretation of something gained is "work." It was given as their task to work the ground, but it is my experience that modern man needs a purpose and that purpose is often found in work. So it would be my belief that there was a blessing in this curse.

Yes, I overlooked the "till the ground" connection! Thank you!

EDIT: Although if I was really a talmud/torah student, I'd have to argue with you, just to keep it going. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, I overlooked the "till the ground" connection! Thank you!

EDIT: Although if I was really a talmud/torah student, I'd have to argue with you, just to keep it going. 🙂

OK, then, keep it going as I may have more to say on this issue.

Originally posted by kirksey957
OK, then, keep it going as I may have more to say on this issue.

I think my brain's cracked for now! You know though, some of us have always thought of "work" in a negative sense--kind of in a knee-jerk way. I think in Hebrew avodah (I think that's it) is used to mean both worship and work.

But I really think expanding it to that notion of "purposefulness" adds a whole lot, even going back to my "midrash" and the parent/child stuff.

Originally posted by vistesd
Then YHVH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—therefore YHVH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (Gen 3:22, 23)

Ah, the other tree in the story: etz chaim, ...[text shortened]... ming for—however you think of God (e.g., as a being, the ground of being, etc.).

I thought they were immortal; after all they were allowed to eat of all the trees of the Garden, so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life. God only has a problem with them being immortal once they know the difference between good and evil; the combination of knowledge and immortality seems to make them toooooo "God-like" for God in the story. So they receive death as one of the punishments for disobedience in traditional "Christian" interpretations.

I still think the Pandora's Box story is a parallel type of story. In both, Man's quest for knowledge leads to severe consequences (and it's all the woman's fault to make the misogynics happy). Interestingly, the gods in the Greek story have the "plausible denialibility" that KellyJay wants OT God to have in Genesis; the Gods put the evils in the box and gave it to Man but they didn't open it - Man did. I think the Greeks were sophisticated enough to see that this make no moral difference; the Gods put the evils there and should have known their creations would do what they naturally do. Unfortunately for Kelly, in Genesis God does more than merely watch the evils fly out of the box - He directly intervenes afterward and hands out punishments to A & E and their descendants.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thoughts? Comments?

I think the author missed the point of the Genesis account.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think the author missed the point of the Genesis account.

Brilliant ! 😀 😵 😀

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought they were immortal; after all they were allowed to eat of all the trees of the Garden, so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life. God only has a problem with them being immortal once they know the difference betwe ...[text shortened]... fterward and hands out punishments to A & E and their descendants.

…so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life.

Good point. I’ll stand pat, but I think that is exactly how the back-and-forth of talmid-torah is supposed to work! But I’ve worked my brain on it too hard already today! (My wife keeps saying I need to find a rabbi who will really teach me.) All real Torah study takes place in pairs, and the students paired are supposed to disagree, back and forth.

…the combination of knowledge and immortality seems to make them toooooo "God-like" for God in the story.

And/or for their own good? I’m not pressing that, and I understand the point you’re arguing—I grew up with that as the interpretation. My main underlying purpose is to show that:

(1) Traditional Judaism (and, I suspect, early Christianity as well, and, e.g., St. Ignatius Loyola) not only allows, but encourages multiple and innovative interpretations—you are both supposed to bring yourself to the text, even to the point of “reading into it,” and then read out of it “your torah.” Torah is not to become ossified in the “frozen” word; there is no one the meaning. As a rabbi said, “Judaism is fundamentally a hermeneutical religion.” My discovery of that has been a great joy…

A quote from Ouaknin: “The same idea is expressed in the texts of Hasidism in the following manner: each man is a letter or a part of a letter. The Book has been completely written when there is no longer any missing letter. Each man must write his letter, must write himself, that is to say, create himself by renewing a meaning: his meaning.” (Ouaknin is a rabbi, a philosopher and a professor of Talmudic philosophy.)

(2) Rabbinical Judaism has a strong tradition of “humanism,” and of interpreting the Torah in that light (closer, perhaps, to your comments on Pandora’s Box and the other Greek myths). Rabbinical Judaism is not the religion of the “old testament;” the oral tradition of the Talmuds and the Midrash go with it (after all, Jews have not stoned anyone for adultery in a long, long time).

(3) It all can be done with a certain “lightness of touch,” and still be meaningful.

You might enjoy Burton Visotzky’s Reading the Book. It’s a fun introduction, in modern lingo, to the midrashic approach.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life.

Good point. I’ll stand pat, but I think that is exactly how the back-and-forth of talmid-torah is supposed to work! But I’ve worked my brain on it too hard already today! (My wife keeps saying I need to find a rabbi who will really teach me.) All real Torah study takes place in pairs, and the stud ...[text shortened]... Reading the Book. It’s a fun introduction, in modern lingo, to the midrashic approach.
[/b]

Visotzky is one f the contributors in Bill Moyer's Genesis, a Dialogue.

Another way of looking at this is from a developmental perspective in which one witnesses the growing independence of man, even in disobedience. The framework of "paradise" is somewhat womblike in that they have no responsibilities or problems other than loneliness. Being "cast out" is the real world.

I will never forget one of the most unhappy persons I ever met in my line of work. Her husband was dying and she was just beside herself. She said, 'You don't understand. My husband and I have lived a charmed perfect life and this cannot be happening. She lived in a mansion and had all the comforts of "paradise." Constrast this to someone who is broken and knows this aspect of life and can still find something lovely in life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want to compare those stories, had Adam and Eve not eaten from that tree they would have lived forever, unlike your story the same cannot be said for your mother's kids.
Kelly

Sorry for cutting in late on this discussion.

Am I right in saying, had Adam and Eve not eaten from the tree, none of us would be around?

I'm far from a Biblical scholar but do enjoy these threads, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by PawnCurry
Sorry for cutting in late on this discussion.

Am I right in saying, had Adam and Eve not eaten from the tree, none of us would be around?

I'm far from a Biblical scholar but do enjoy these threads, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I imagine a lot more of us would be around.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
I "blame" the one who actually gave the punishment of death and you ignore the fact that death was God's punishment by the words of your Holy Book. They're no point in discussing it with you anymore; your mind is firmly encased in lead on this.

The wages of sin is death, I'm not disputing that they fell when they
ate of that tree and death was the result. I'm not disputing that man
was formed from the dust of the earth where God said man would
return, what I'm saying was it was the wages of sin that did it.

Spell out the exact words you want to use to clear up this,
God killed them how, when? Please, give the details!

How did God kill them? I've been asking you this even though you
have been making the claim God did it, you have not answered this
basic question. A question which I would think would be important
since you are claiming someone died at another's hand. Your best
response todate has been....oh wait, you have not given the verse
where it says God killed them.

According to scripture I assume we both agree that God set up the
universe by His Word, that He also created it to suit Himself, He also
had the right to do with it as He wills. Even if I allow for what you
seem to be saying, God's punishment of death where it was God
directly and not in fact 'sin' that brought death into the human
experience, wouldn't He by divine right be able to pass judgment and
carry that judgment out, and be more than in His right to do so? I
still do not agree with your point of view, yet even if I did, He is still
God, it is still His universe, He would still be within His right to do so.

I however still maintain it was 'sin' once it entered into the human
experience that brought death into man's life. God during the
exchange you quoted was simply laying out how it was going to be.
I don't recall seeing God killed Adam or Eve, outside of telling them
what was going to happen to their bodies God didn't kill anyone.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought they were immortal; after all they were allowed to eat of all the trees of the Garden, so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life. God only has a problem with them being immortal once they know the difference between good and evil; the combination of knowledge and immortality seems to make them toooooo "God-like" for God in the st ...[text shortened]... box - He directly intervenes afterward and hands out punishments to A & E and their descendants.

The tree of Life wasn't a big deal until they had sin within them.
They had to be protected from the tree of Life after sin entered their
lives.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I imagine a lot more of us would be around.
Kelly

But would we be on an internet chess site? Or would we be more like sheep grazing fields all day. Would we play games, have fears, enjoy highs and lows... or would we just be a bunch of happy sheep?

Jesus died on the cross, and he's a hero. Adam and Eve gave us love, hate, war, peace, art, music, joy, fear, and the you you are today, and the me I am today... and they were somehow 'wrong' in what they did.

RX

Originally posted by Phlabibit
But would we be on an internet chess site? Or would we be more like sheep grazing fields all day. Would we play games, have fears, enjoy highs and lows... or would we just be a bunch of happy sheep?

Jesus died on the cross, and he's a hero. Adam and Eve gave us love, hate, war, peace, art, music, joy, fear, and the you you are today, and the me I am today... and they were somehow 'wrong' in what they did.

RX

That I don't know, but I imagine we will find out when Christ comes
back.
Kelly