Is Genesis 2-3 a Corrupted Text? |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Bismarck
Senior Member Joined: 01 March 2006 Status: Offline Points: 286 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 31 March 2006 at 11:49pm |
I see a very grievous corruption in the standard account of Genesis 2-3,
regarding the Garden of Eden and the Snake's Temptation. Here is the text to which I will refer: Genesis 2 (Young's Literal Translation) 8 And Jehovah God planteth a garden in Eden, at the east, and He setteth there the man whom He hath formed; 9 and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ... 15 And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it. 16 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; 17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' Genesis 3 1 And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made, and he saith unto the woman, `Is it true that God hath said, Ye do not eat of every tree of the garden?' 2 And the woman saith unto the serpent, `Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we do eat, 3 and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.' 4 And the serpent saith unto the woman, `Dying, ye do not die, 5 for God doth know that in the day of your eating of it -- your eyes have been opened, and ye have been as God, knowing good and evil.' ... 22 And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' -- 23 Jehovah God sendeth him forth from the garden of Eden to serve the ground from which he hath been taken; 24 yea, he casteth out the man, and causeth to dwell at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flame of the sword which is turning itself round to guard the way of the tree of life. Which Tree is in the 'Midst of the Garden'? In Genesis 2:9, it is the Tree of Life which is clearly labled "the tree in midst of the garden". And Almighty God allowed Adam and Eve to eat from "all the trees of the garden", a phrase that is oft repeated (Gen 2:16, 3:1, 3:2). This makes sense, as the Garden of Eden is a paradise in which all should be good and pleasant. This would seemingly contrast with the corrupted tree that bore the "mixed fruit" of good mixed with, and hence corrupted by, evil. That tree would, logically at least, not be a "tree of the garden" -- not to mention that, if it were, it should be permissible to eat from it! (Again, Gen 2:16, 3:1, 3:2) But yet, when Eve answers the Snake in Genesis 3:3, Eve is here made to say that she is not allowed to eat from the "tree in the midst of the garden". But we had just established that "the tree in the midst of the garden" was the Tree of Life (Gen 2:9). And so we have a seeming contradiction: The poluted tree of good corruptedly mixed with evil was, we reasoned, not a "tree of the garden", because Almighty God clearly allowed Adam and Eve to eat from "all the trees of the garden", and because the Garden of Eden is a beautiful paradise wherein we would presume to find no pollution. But then Eve is made to shatter our clear picture of Eden with her response to the Snake (Gen 3:3), which puts the polluted tree right smack dab in the very heart of paradise! Note also that if it really was the corrupted tree that Almighty God somehow planted in the heart of paradise, then that would seem to mean the Tree of Life would have to be elsewhere... unless the Tree of Life Everlasting was right next to the Tree of Pollution! Let it not be, the juxtapostion of Pure Goodliness with "Good mixed with Evil"! And, would that not basically turn the whole Garden of Eden into a similar "mixed blessing" along with the corrupted tree itself?? However, the final verse of chapter 3 does clearly indicate that Almighty God guarded the Tree of Life within the paradise he booted Adam and Eve from, so we are more confident that it really was in fact the Tree of Life that was the heart of Eden. But yet there is some confusion and ambiguity... which makes the whole account a "mixed bag", no? The Snake told the Truth?? Compare Genesis 3:5 with 3:22. The Snake clearly tells Eve that eating the fruit will make her "as God". And then, lo and behold, after dispensing curses left and right to Adam, Eve, and the Snake, Almighty God then rues that "Adam has become as on of us." So, the Snake didn't lie at all! The Snake told Eve "God's Honest Truth"!! (Almighty God does curse mankind to a finite lifespan in Genesis 3:19, seemingly fulfilling God's prophecy that eating the corrupted fruit would lead to death.) Then why did Almighty God punish Adam, Eve, or the Snake? We have established that the Snake actually told no lie -- or, at least, told a partial truth, "You will become as God with your new found knowledge, but it will cost you." The question clearly arises, however, why exactly would Almighty God punish Adam? After all, God made man "in his image" (Gen 1:26), and by logic Almighty God would want us to be more like Him, as He ever calls us to Him and His Mightiness and Main. But yet, here, Adam actually does become like God... for which Almighty God then cruelly, it would seem, punishes his "uppity" creation! Adam's crime had been to violate God's express instruction not to eat from the polluted tree (Gen 2:17), it is true, but that was not merely the stern warning of a loving father looking out for His children. Rather, it was a "glass ceiling" designed to keep mankind from acquiring knowledge -- the very knowledge required to be like God! And furthermore, it is this seemingly cruel God that actually does the cursing! Adam was only given a limited lifespan (Gen 3:19) by Almighty God! If Almighty God had wanted to, He could surely have let Adam eat from the tree of "Godly Knowledge", as it were, and live. The only reason God dressed down Adam is, it would seem, from a jealousy and covetousness for the very knowledge that separated Almighty God from "lowly man"! How could Almighty God be a jealous and covetous God, when the very same God through Moses bid mankind never to begrudge their neighbor's belongings (10th Bidding of God)? We seem to have an Almighty God here full of contradictions! A "mixed bag", if you will, full of hypocrisy -- a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of God! "I, God, can have this knowledge... but you shouldn't, and if you try, I'll whup your ass!" And lastly, we have to ask: why exactly would Almighty God "dangle" this alluring tree of "Godly Knowledge" before our eyes and tempt and tease us with a "look but don't touch" law? Almighty God willfully put a polluted tree in Eden? Or, was really a good tree, of Godly Knowledge, and our Jealous Covetous Almighty God just wanted to keep us in our place as ignorant peons? Conclusion: So, after reading Genesis 2-3, we are left bewildered. Which tree was it, darn it, that was in the heart of Eden? Was, or was not, the polluted tree even in the Garden? If it was in Eden, why would God put such "evil corruption" right smack dab in the heart of paradise? Is He perverse? And if it really was a good tree, of Godly Knowledge that really truly actually does make us more like God, then why would the same God who made us "in his image" or "in his likeness" (Gen 1:26) want to then "stunt" our further development? We are left full of confusion and ambiguity. We are left with clarity and wisdom... mixed with confusion... and even doubt in the true Glory of God. I offer that this may, perhaps, be a corrupted text. Interestingly, precisely this portion of Genesis is missing from the opening leafs of the translated Dead Sea Scrolls that have been, at long last, let out to the public. |
|
Bismarck
Senior Member Joined: 01 March 2006 Status: Offline Points: 286 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Note that not only are millions of bipedal homonids resembling
yourself currently swayed into explicitly Satanic cults by this very passage -- Anton LeVay's Church of Satan loves the icon of the "bitten apple" to show its "aggressive pursuit of knowledge"... but also Marcion in the mid 2nd Century AD nearly swamped Christendom with his numerous followers based upon precisely these types of arguments, showing that the God of the Old Testament and that of the New of the Messiah could not possibly be the same God. So large numbers of people have been confused for at least 1850 years by this passage and others. |
|
Bismarck
Senior Member Joined: 01 March 2006 Status: Offline Points: 286 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It also led to "Gnostics" who held that there was a "God of this World"
beneath Almighty God in the Heavens. They applied the word "Demiurge" to the "lower God". Literally translated into English-only words, Demi - urg (os) = Tame - work (er) That is, those Gnostics wound up with the belief that there was a "God of this World" who was a Tame-worker -- a being trying literally to domesicate humans, to turn them into bipedal cows... to wit, "beasts of the field". The Tameworker would, presumably, do things like foster wars to kill off the boldest and toughest elements of mankind, and repeat the process generation after generation after generation, until the relic remnant left behind was literally weak and tame. Sort of like "inverse Predation" -- whereas predation in the wild culls off the weakest members of the herd, by killing off the strongest, you can drive the rabble down into servility = tameness. As in, a long time ago somebody figured out they could "break in" wild grains to make the domesticated wheats and corns we have today... And then later somebody said, "hey, if we can do that with plants..." and we wound up with "man's best friend"... And then later some Egyptian Pharaoh or something said, "Hmm, if we did it to plants, and we did it Fido here, I wonder if I could do it to Fred over there too?" So there have been lots of people reading lots of things into the ambiguities in texts like these. Edited by Bismarck |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |