My interpretation on Eden

Didymos, let me elaborate a little here on your statements below:

"This makes an odd assumption - that God did not know what man's existence would involve. This is an assumption that seems alien to the text, at least from what I can recall".

That is simply why I question it. It is not so much a alienation as it is reasoning why those "assumptions" could be made. I am just providing my assumption as to "why" those assumptions were made considering the mind of man as he related his experiences of his own being to that of God. It is beyond me how anyone could possibly do that.

"Going back to the actual text is important. The text does not mention an apple - the notion that the fruit of the Tree was an apple comes from Milton, not from Genesis".

I understand the text does not mention the apple, but what is the forbidden fruit? That was never specified as to what exactly that was. That is a huge "blank" and is in and of itself a huge assumption that indoctrinated in the mind of man his frailties when there couldn't have possibly been any and that is why the vague metaphor of the forbidden fruit was used to instill in the mind of man a "wrath" to God that doesn't exist. Yet that is a frailty of man, to have wrath, and to apply that frailty to God, IMO, makes no sense whatsoever. Not if, in the same breath, you are going to use words like omnipotent and omnipresent. All understanding negates anger in all aspects. At least that's how I interpret it.

"Man ate the fruit of the Tree, an act forbidden by God. Thus, eating the fruit was blatant defiance of God".

If you don't mind, allow me to tell you the reason behind that particular statement. It is my fervent belief man cannot be controlled unless you threaten him with losing something he holds dear. Such as his very life. Considering our martyrs, even then there are those who will risk that life in search for the truth. Now risking ones immortal soul is a different matter. The laws of man have proven to be unjust, but the "laws of God", hmmm? What better control could man have over his fellow man than prescribe universal laws of God to quell his inability to be controlled. Man is not "in defiance" of God, he is in defiance of man. So why not "create" a God that caters to what man wants and devise an elaborate "burning bush" scenario. That ought to do the trick. Huh?

Personally, to me, this is the greatest mistake man could possibly make. I call it a mistake in that it, at least in my mind, could be justified considering our only understanding of God is what we can gather from our knowledge and experiences that would lead to that assumption that we are "images" of God and assume He is like Us. Meaning He is the "Supreme" human being guilty of wrath, jealously and vengeance if we don't toe the line. When you really stop and think about it, really think about it, it becomes rather hard to believe. I call that God, the god of those who wish to rule. How convenient that would be.

I have come to conclude man is totally benign except when provoked and threatened. Man does that, God doesn't. Yet he has created a God that supports his greed, oppression, guile as his means to rule his fellow man that threatens his very soul quelling mans innate desire to be free.

"Well, according to the story, God did expel Adam and Eve from Eden. This does not rely on outside interpretation, it's what the text says. The only "rule" was that Adam and Eve not eat the fruit of the Tree".
So it is written? Hmmm?

William

Thank you Didymos for your response and forgive me at my poor attempts of communicating my thoughts. In a nutshell Genesis supplied the fundamental groundwork that issued human frailties to be those traits of God, such as the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden would indicate an act of anger. It is my belief this assumption created a wrong "reason" for the separation of God and man, as I have noted in other posts man's separation was inevitable for it had to be that way for man to realize the magnitude of his creation. Good and evil did not exist. At least not in a sinister, malicious extent as is popularly understood.

I totally understand the text and to much degree the mind set of the time that would lead man to believe such as he believed. I understand the metaphors. What perplexes me is our adhering to these "beyond ancient" interpretations. What I am saying if man's expulsion were indeed a "punishment", considering the extreme savagery of our history, God would have dismissed us long ago.

In conclusion what I am trying to put forth is man's demise will be of man's doing and it is up to us to reestablish that connection to God, of which I have more than once offered my thinking on this. Peace of mind is that gateway for it could easily be understood that peace of mind was that "Eden".

As far as my "negative pre-conceived notions", I have to agree with you. Except they are not notions and I am not sure what you mean by pre-conceived. There is an abundance of proof that causes my negativity.
I understand this thread is understanding Genesis, but to reach a definitive understanding one must attempt to connect the dots. Not easy, I know, especially when trying to bring more clarity to this thing we call life. I have given my thoughts as to how Genesis can be tied into many other "as ancient" interpretations" to support it. And as I have said before, we have slept since then.

Aphoric,
IMHO, let me congratulate you on you interpretation. If you don't mind, allow me to add and edit a bit as to my interpretation. We are so very close in our thinking.

We are a perfection creation. What alienated us from that from which we were created is life itself and the overwhelming "new" sensation our being represented. The tree of knowledge is what this sensate, thinking entity we call the "human being" would learn that has never existed before. Neither God, nor man would know what that would be. You see we are the new "development" of God or the universe. Two entities you cannot separate. If you do, you get into trouble. IMO.

The obedience is all man's idea as it relates to his understanding and his "need" to be obeyed. You are right on the mark here. What is still a puzzle to me is where did "that" little bit of wisdom came from. For any human being to "edit" the truth, he must "know" the truth. To alter it would be for his own "selfish" purposes, which is what treating man as subservient does. Issuing and instilling and giving merit to the "Ten Commandments". If this is true, then both Genesis and Exodus were meant to correlate to one another for continuity. Hmmm?

Life would be our teacher as we would learn what was good and evil as we dealt with the overwhelming sensation of it finally coming to the realization a need to reestablish that oneness that life itself caused us to become alienated from.

With no understanding of what "perfection" was all about, which is what would have transpired in our beginning, we were destined to discover for ourselves what "imperfection" was.

Toss this around in your "noggin" for a while and let me know what you think.

Good Post.
William

Right, you could just as easily interpret the story in this way if you do not know how to read.

Aphoric's interpretation is pretty close to my take on the story. Adam and Eve lived in paradise; there is no suggestion that Adam and Eve were somehow ignorant. Adam and Eve can no longer live in Eden after they eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - once they begin to see the world in dualistic terms, Eden is beyond them.

The story is about dualism, the story is a warning against dualism and dualistic thinking. The snake is not Satan, there is no suggestion of the snake's identify in the text. The snake is simply one with a forked tongue - one who coaxes people to do wrong.

The Bible doesn't contain logic, rather the Bible requires some logic to understand. Logic doesn't exist 'out there', logic is a tool of the human mind used for understanding reality. Logic is all in our own heads.

so you are telling me what I can and can't believe now? Justify your points as opposed to allowing comments to drop from your lips as if they were the nectar of absolute truth.

I don't know who wrote down the story of Eden, of course, or what they had in mind as they wrote it. I do believe, however, that Aphoric's approach to the text is the right one. These stories are full of meaning and this meaning is certainly not the literal one. I find it is usually safe to work on the assumption that our forefathers were not idiots.

As usual Lao-tsu is relevant. "Because right and wrong appeared the Way was injured."

I wonder if the central myths of the Old Testament, the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomarrah etc., are just a relevant to our lives today as they ever were, and that they speak not of historical events but of continuing processes.

I find no relevance to my life and the stories in the old testament. I see an angry unforgiving demented god obsessed with his own importance and the poor souls who have to abide by his rules or forever suffer his twisted sense of benevolence..Shakespears stories have more relevance and understanding of human frailty and courage than any i see in the old testament..

Didymos, good response. If I can be a little more clear.

"I am having trouble with this, still. First, I do not see why God expelling Adam and Eve from Eden was an act of anger. This is a popular assumption, but not one I recall from the text (and please correct me if I am wrong, as I may very well be wrong!)".

Didymos, my friend, I am not sure exactly now what text you are referring to. If you would type into you browzer "Man's fall form grace" there is much information and interpretations that identify this act to more than an "assumption" among believers. It was indeed out of anger in which God punishes both Adam and Eve

"That's the thing, though - I do not think the expulsion was a punishment. If eating the fruit represents Adam and Eve's transition to a dualistic understanding of reality, then Adam and Eve cannot stay in Eden because they have, of their own free will, cut themselves off from God".

Exactly. Whether it was a matter of free will or not, it was inevitable. It had to be, IMO. Of course those who penned the text felt differently and that is where I have my argument. As I have said in relating to an "omnipotent" anything, there would be "no anger" for an omnipotent entity would be also "all understanding". Anger, wrath, jealousy and vengeance are signs of human frailties and cannot be, IMO associated to God. That is what is absurd.

"Right or wrong, they are certainly notions. Pre-conceived meaning that your negative views (or notions) toward God were arrived at prior to studying scripture. From scripture, the scripture in question, I see no evidence of a God that supports our "greed, oppression, and guile".

My negative views are not in anyway towards God, it man's hubris that blow's me away. You misunderstood what I said before. "Man created a rendition of God that would support Greed, oppression and guile allowing man to use his interpretation of God to give justification to man's Greed, oppression, and guile except "man's" calls his "opulence" blessings and gifts from God.

holy **** @ duality. That concept's not going to let me go for awhile. I believe there is evidence however, to support the position that Adam and Eve were ignorant. Adam and Eve were created with no knowledge of the world around them. They had no concept of sky, or horse, or rock. This is the definition of ignorance: a lack of knowledge or understanding. As Adam and Eve progressed through existence, they began conceptualizing and defining the different objects they discovered. This process of being born into ignorance, and then progressing through learning about the world around us is the same process you'll find in every individual as they begin to explore and discover.

As I typed that I made another realization, but I want to know what you think about this assertion, and if I've made my rationale clear before we move on. So, how 'bout them apples?

Then let me ask - does man do this in scripture, or does man do this outside of scripture? Again, I do not see such a God in scripture, though I do see man perverting scripture in order to justify his greed and hatred.