Adam the beginning of the end for God.

IMustBreakAway

Just wondering if anyone else has had thoughts like this. Eve was deceived into eating the fruit. An act that constituted a rebellion against God. But the explanation has always been in favor of her deception. And in our male dominated society we sometimes accept too easily the idea of eve being a gullible woman. (Sorry I am working on that one)

But Adam wasn't deceived; he eats the fruit on purpose and then tries to blame the woman. Which I think even children can see through his excuses and realizes that this constituted a deliberate act of rebellion against God. What if Adam and eve represent the beginning of the long painful process of rejecting God in humanities combined psyche? There are many first woman first man type myths (often involving punishment from God, the Greek story of Prometheus comes to mind.) Adam and Eve's rebellion represented the dawning of the fact that there was no creator, no one to listen to. And it is taking us 7000 years to understand it fully.

Just thoughts.

joelbear

i find that a fascinating hypothesis.

daystar

Interesting, because I just touched upon this subject in this thread regarding "Good" and "Evil" -

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/107849/1874856/post.ashx#1874856

IMustBreakAway

Thanks Joel.. (you cutie..)

Interesting approach Daystar, The idea of satan has always interested me. I think "church of satan" has some good points when they claim to worship themselves. (i tried to contact satan but he was as silent as God on the subject..)

Big Dog

I think throwing tomatos would have been a more appropriate metaphor, but seriously, an interesting spin on it, makes as much sense as any other spin I have heard.

Trying to fathom what writers from 4000 years ago meant when they penned their stories is really a leap when you think about it. I remember in the movie Back To School when Rodney Dangerfield gets Kurt Vonnegut to write a paper for him on a Vonnegut novel, and the professor tells him that it was obvious he didn't write the paper and whoever did write had no idea what Vonnegut really meant.

What was included, what it means, what the writer was trying to say, how can we begin to even imagine we know.

Swan

I have often wondered the same thing.

Tammy

Utopian_Raindrops

Narkissos

Some Gnostic take on the story: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/105608/1831982/post.ashx#1831982

Another related question is whether Yhwh in Genesis 2:4b--3 is "God" or "a god". That is, if the story really emerged in a full-fledged monotheistic setting. Certainly it was understood that way by the final editor-compiler of Genesis, but several details in the story rather point to a polytheistic (or henotheistic, as Yhwh is doubtless more prominent than in earlier polytheism) context. Especially, the serpent says "you will be like 'elohim, knowing (plural) good and evil" (3:5); in this context 'elohim can be construed as a real plural, "like gods" (cf. LXX hôs theoi), or as a singular "like God" (the plural of "knowing" then referring back not to 'elohim but to "you"). The first hypothesis might be deemed more natural, and seems to be confirmed by the statement of Yhwh (v. 22): "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil".

This leads to consider the major shift introduced into Israelite religion by Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century BC: To Dtr-Isaiah, Yhwh is not a god among others anymore, not even the best of them (as he is still in Deuteronomy): he is the only god, i.e. "God". A shift that implies harsh religious criticism, for it has to present all gods except Yhwh as non-existent. In that sense monotheism is atheist right from the beginning, it started with the negation of gods. This initial negation is still underlying the charge of "atheism" against Jews and Christians in the Graeco-Roman world. Looking back from a modern situation where atheism is at least a serious option, one can't help noticing that (1) monotheism stands halfway, as it were, between polytheism and atheism and (2) the atheist cricticism of theism is essentially the same as the criticism once leveled by monotheism at polytheism -- as a poster put it recently, it only denies "one god more" (cf. Nietzsche's "great idol," i.e. the Jewish-Christian "God").

Shining One

>This leads to consider the major shift introduced into Israelite religion by Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century BC: To Dtr-Isaiah, Yhwh is not a god among others anymore, not even the best of them (as he is still in Deuteronomy): he is the only god, i.e. "God". A shift that implies harsh religious criticism, for it has to present all gods except Yhwh as non-existent. In that sense monotheism is atheist right from the beginning,

You spout a hypothesis or two that aren't taken seriously outside of narrow realm of liberal scholarship. That puts them firmly in the realm of speculation. The speculation stems from the redating of Old Testament books to eliminate prophecy (naturalist dogma: no true prophecy has ever happened because we cannot 'falsify' it) and to cast doubt on the authority of the Biblical text.

>Nietzsche's

He was an atheist that ended up dead from suicide, right?
Rex

THE SHOOTIST

Rex, The Bible text casts doubt about its own authority without us having to be critical. I guess you expect all of us to swallow that Bible chronology is inspired as well. You know what I mean, a global Noachian flood 4500 years ago, the creation of man 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve being the first humans and don't let us forget Eve came from Adams Rib. Then a talking snake tells a naked woman how to be like God and the screwup takes off them there. To any logical minded person the story of Adam is the begginning of the end for god. Myths are only good for mythical gods.

Adam the beginning of the end for God.

Share this