Adam & Eve

Ah, this is a problem throughout Genesis. Genesis is filled with a lot of creation myths and older stories that come from a lot of different cultures (the flood myth comes from lots of cultures; the story of Babel seems to be very different from a lot of the other Genesis stories; the story of Joseph is strange because he seems to be the first figure to have a childhood and an adulthood, both recorded, whereas no one else before him seems to, etc.). But its editing leaves a lot to be desired. So you end up with gaps like this.

A few possible explanations, take your pick or make up your own! :-D
1) there were several Edens and the fall happened again and again, all over the world, hence there were lots of cast out people all over the place;
2) extra people were created later (and their creation story is lost or not recorded) so as not to compound the first family's original sin with that of incest;
3) the Eden story isn't the story of the first people on the planet, it's just the story of the first people whose descendents can eventually be traced to Abraham, then Moses and then Jesus. But there were other people and their creation story is (as in #2, above) either unknown or not mentioned; or
4) poor quality control on the part of the writers and compilers of the Bible.

I'm inclined to believe #4.

Thoughtful answer, Jespah. I opt for No. 4, myself. Genesis is wonderful for its imagery and spiritual themes, but somewhat lacking as history...

I've actually been thinking about Genesis a lot lately (I'm not sure why). It's a fascinating read, the stories really are timeless, but there's lots of stuff that's missing and would be interesting, such as, after being kicked out of Eden, Adam and Eve have to figure out how to feed themselves - I think it would've been interesting to see how they did this. Did they do it on their own (self-reliance) or did they ask God for lots of help (through prayer, maybe)?

Why is Noah considered to be a righteous person if he fails to even try to help out his (albeit sinning) neighbors? He doesn't seem to even feel badly when they all perish in the flood. Is their wickedness so horrible that it exempts him from empathy?

That sort of thing; I think there can be thoughtful discussions on a lot of the Genesis stories. Probably re all of the Bible, but Genesis is particularly rich with stories.

In some traditions Eve was Adam's second wife. He sired an unspecified number of children on Lilith, but when Lilith wanted to lie on top he put her aside and petitioned God for a more docile helpmeet.

All of the Good Women in the World are descended from Eve. The rest of us are great-great-great granddaughters of Lilith.

This accounts for a great deal of confused conviction in Women's Lib ranks.

If I had to pick one of those I suppose # 4 would be the one, but if there are so many gaps, then how does one belive? How does one know that the bible is actually truth?

If they left all that out what else has been left out that we do not know about, and why would God allow somthing to be written that is confusing, and not the whole story?

5) The Bible is false? Made up?

Well, yeah; I'm just trying to provide an explanation within context. It's about faith and not about scientific facts, of course. Otherwise if the Bible was truly factual, the tiny ark would've become a coffin pretty quickly, as there wasn't nearly enough room for all of the earth's species, plus food, plus a space to separate the carnivores from the plant-eaters. Even if God provides all of the food (not stated in Genesis) or makes all the meat-eaters temporary vegetarians (also not spelled out in Genesis), then the ark is still a coffin because either the animals and people would've drowned in their own wastes or would have gone insane due to the small living area. After all, this was a small vessel rather than a huge cruise ship.

So there's poor quality control if you want to give it the tincture of fact, but naturally a far more likely explanation is that it's not factual at all. So it's either a sin of omission (e. g. not all of the facts are presented), or one of fallacy (e. g. not true at all), so far as I can tell. Naturally, that does not mean it cannot be a basis of faith. Faith is not equivalent to scientific understanding and, as such, does not require proofs or logic.

Well, I don't think it's "false" nor do I think every word is literally accurate and historical. It falls somewhere in the vast area in between...

Abraham Joshua Heschel, who was a contemporary Jewish theologian, suggested that the entire bible be read like a midrash. A midrash is a Jewish story featuring biblical characters that didn't necessarily happen that way, but in its telling either teaches something or helps to explain one the problems with the editing that you've mentioned. Some of them may actually be much older stories that just didn't make it into the bible, or folk tales.

So in other words, when looking at scripture as a religious text, only look at it in that way. Get meaning from it. Don't cling to the way it writes History. Now, when studying Biblical History, that's something else entirely, but in this case, too, the idea that the literal meaning is true must be discarded as the book is reduced to the same level as any other ancient volume.


Does that make sense?

Yep...right up until you begin Leviticus.

Then it doesn't make any sense at all.

The bible is a redacted text. That is all books of both the old and new are abstracted from earlier text. The first five books of the "Old Testament" have received the most scrutiny and it is fairly certain there are five authors labeled the J,E,P and D text and a redactor labeled the R text. As this redacted text was designed to satisfy communities of divergent opinions, there are multiple genesis stories within it to please all parties.

Here is an interesting and non-academic web site that takes the first 10 chapters of Genesis and color-codes the different texts


http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm

Meaning can still be found through the things described in Leviticus.

Wikied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

Better explanation than mine.

I guess you are correct...but the "meaning" is hardly the kind one would expect from a "holy" book.

Here are a couple from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Give us your take on their "meaning."

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13


"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff


"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you." Deuteronomy 20:10


"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9


"Therefore, he who has any of the following defects may not come
forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has any disfigurement
or malformation, or crippled foot or hand....he may not approach
the veil nor go up to the altar on account of these defects; he
shall not profane these things that are sacred to me, for it is
I, the Lord, who make them sacred." Leviticus 21:18ff

Moshe already spoke to you about the slave issue. As a Jew, the Torah in the context of the surrounding texts as well. A more contemporary approach would be to notice the gradual growth in morality from the exodus slavery laws to the leviticus slavery laws to the deuteronomy slavery laws, and see this as a gradual elevation in morality. In this case a Jew would recognize our ancestors were coming from a less-civil society and notice the way basic principles of morality continued to be applied to a greater and greater degree.

The fascinating thing about the Bible is that it is not just one type of literature. It is not just collected sayings or a guide to living. It is the collected canonized works of a god-minded civilization.

The issue of homosexuality as in your next quote is one that really became very clear as an issue probably in the past century. The conservative movement sees this as one of those stepping stones. The authors of the bible, being human, are fallible. They could not have known loving homosexual relationships in the way that they exist today. So they approve. The renewal movement, basically, just says "So what?" Because they also recognize the authors as being fallible. Still, can something be learned from this? Yes. Fundamentalism is a dangerous path. Either way, the orthodox would hold this in light of the talmud and be unable to carry out such a sentence because of the laws of sentencing.

The stubborn and unruly son is a case that upsets many people. I have had it explained to me as a sort of boogie man story included so that little children will not act up. There are no recorded cases of it being carried out, and I was reading in the mishnah about a week ago -- this is long and I will not be including footnotes on hebrew language:

M. Sanhedrin 8:1

A rebellious and disobedient son1 -- when does he become* a rebellious and disobedient son?2 From the age when he can produce two hairs3 til he grows the lower beard,4 and not the upper [beard5 is here means] -- but the Sages spoke in chaste terms6 -- as it is said,7 If a man have... a son, [it means] a son and not a daughter,8 a son and not a man,4 and a minor is exempt4 sine he has not yet entered into the general scope of [having to observe] the commandments.

1. Deut. 21:18 et seq 2. i.e. at what age is he liable to stoning for the offence. 3. On the genitalia (at the age of thirteen years and one day in a normal male). 4. The hair round the genitals -- only during this interval is he liable to stoning. 5. Round the chin. 6. viz. using the word beard. 7.Deut. 21:18. 8. She in not liable to stoning.

8:2

When is he liable? When he eats a tartemar1 of flesh2 and drinks half a log3 of Italian wine. R. Jose4 says, A maneh5 of flesh and a log of wine. If he consumed it at a religious gathering,6 if he consumed it at the intercalation of the month,7 if he consumed a second tithe in Jerusalem,8 if he ate carrion9 or terefah flesh,10 [of the flesh of] unclean animals11 or creeping things,12 (or if he ate completely untithed produce or first tithe from which the priest's due had not been separated, or second tithe or dedicated produce which had not been redeemed),13 if he ate aught and had thereby fulfilled a commandment or had committed a transgression,14 if he consumed any food but did not consume flesh, if he drank any liquid, but did not drink wine, he has not become* a rebellious and disobedient son, unless he both consumes flesh and drinks wine, as it is said,15 a glutton and a drunkard.16 And although there is no proof for the matter, there is an indication for the subject,17, as it is said,18 Be not among winebibbers;19 among gluttonous eaters20 of flesh.

1.197 grams. 2.half-cooked. 3.275 c.cm or 16 c. inches. 4. His view is rejected. 5. 1 Manah = 3 Tartemar. 6. For instance, at a circumcision ceremony, wedding. 7. A festive occasion at the court. 8. Deut 14:26. 9. Deut. 14:21. 10. Ex 22:31. 11. Lev 11:4 et seq; 20:25. 12. Lev 11:42. 13. This part in parenthesis is not given in the Jerusalem Talmud. 14. For instance, on a fast day. 15. Deut 21:20. 18.Proverbs 23:20.

Mishnah 3

If he stole1 from his father and consumed it2 in his father's domain, or from others1 and consumed it in others' domain, [or] from others1 and consumed it in his father's domain, he does not become a rebellious and disobedient son unless he steals1 from his father and consumes it in the others' domain. R Jose3 the son of R. Judah says, Only if he steals1 both from his father and from his mother4.

1. He stole money and bought flesh and wine for consumption. 2. He ate hurriedly for fear of being seen by his father. 3. His opinion is rejected. 4. viz. from money of her own (i.e. not belonging to her husband.)

Mishnah 4

If his father were willing [to bring him to the court for judgement], but his mother was not willing, [or] if his father were not willing but his mother was willing, he does not become * a rebellious and disobedient son unless both are willing.1 R. Judah2 says, If his mother were not like to his father,3 he does not become a rebellious and disobedient son. If either of them4 had a maimed hand,5 or was lamed,6 or mute,7 or blind, or deaf,8 he does not become* a rebellious or disobedient son, as it is said,1 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and not those with maimed hand [can lay hold on him]; and9 bring him10 out, and not the lame [are able to bring him out]; and11 they shall say, and not the mute [can so say]; this11 our son, and not such as are blind [are able to say thus]; he11 doth not hearken12 to our voice, and not the deaf [are able to hear]. They must admonish him before three judges, and [if he disregard the warning], they scourge him [before the three judges]. If he repeated his evil conduct, he must be tried before twenty-three [judges], and he may not be stoned unless there are the three first [judges],13 as it is said,11 this is our son, This is he that was scourged before you. If he fled before the verdict was pronounced against him, and in the meanwhile grew the lower beard,14 he is exempt,15 but if he fled after sentence on him was passed, and in the meantime grew the lower beard, he is liable.16

1.Based on Deut 21:19 2.His view is not accepted. 3.i.e. had like voices and similar features, and were of the same height. 4. The parents. 5.i.e. the whole hand cut off, or even some fingers or one finger cut off: they cannot grasp him with four whole hands. 6. Or limping. 7. Or dumb. 8. Or deaf-mute. 9.Deut 21:21 11.Deut 21:20 13.By whose order he had been scourged. 15. From being stoned. 16.To be stoned, irrespective of length of time gone by.

I don't know what the Gemara says, but basically, it would have been impossible to carry out such a sentence, even to the point of scourging. They continue to explore beyond that point because that is what they do, even if it a hypothetical.

One of the things that must be understood, in regard to your next post, is that the bible contains many views of God because it is such a mixed volume of literature, trying to maintain its leaning towards a spiritual path while holding on to the histories as understood by its people. So there are many views of God. Indeed, everything done is done in relation to God. That is why such things were claimed in His name, and looking back at this we can recognize our ancestor's mistakes, and not use HaShem to validate immoral acts.

Your next quote seems to be a little out of context.

"...for I the LORD am a jealous God, remembering the iniquity of the fathers onto the children, and onto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me. and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments."

Jealous, from the root qof nun alef. Kanna. According to the chumash I'm looking at, it "designated the just indignation of one injured; used here of the all-requiting righteousnes of God. God desires to be all in all to His children, and claims an exclusive right to their love and obedience. He hates cruelty and unrighteousness and loathes impurity and vice; and even as a mother is jealous of all evil influences over her children, He is jealous when, instead of purity and righteousness, it is idolatry and unholiness that command their heart-allegiance."

And on visiting iniquity it it makes mention: "The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut XXIV, 16)" What this is actually talking about, is the fact that a parent can have a bad influence on a child and recognizes takes into account their extra struggles against how they were brought up. Either way, to the thousandth generation mercy will be extended for those who love God.


Last one, our ancestor's concerns even with physical imperfections places emphasis on the importance and sacredness of what was happening. Although today we know better than to be concerned with the purity of the disfigured, we can recognize that in sacred acts, and by that I mean all of our encounters with other individuals as well as those with God, should remain unblemished by misdeeds.

It appears I have misquoted Heschel. He said:

"As a report about revelation, the Bible itself is a midrash. "

In other words, the entire bible is, according to him, commentary and interpretation of revelation, which is central to the bible.