Is Genesis 2-3 a Corrupted Text?
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4211
Printed Date: 26 November 2024 at 1:07am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is Genesis 2-3 a Corrupted Text?
Posted By: Bismarck
Subject: Is Genesis 2-3 a Corrupted Text?
Date 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.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 31 March 2006 at 11:54pm
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.
|
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 01 April 2006 at 12:00am
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.
|
|