Surprised that there is no mention of Genesis as the First Book of Moses, part of the Jewish Torah, and the Hebrew Creation myth - and as for "the woman," I should have thought the commentary might have mentioned Adam's first wife, Lilith, who was written out of the story because she believed in equality and refused " to obey" the man.

Six billion stories and counting...

Now that, Daviy, is both interesting and informative. Thank you.

Is there even the slightest whiff of proof for any of this surreal nonsense?

The point of 'interpretation', as I understand it, is to make clear something that is obscure. Now, there is nothing obscure about Genesis whatsoever. It is perfectly clear; and it is totally incorrect. The only reason to 're-interpret' it -- apart from trying to obtain religious kudos -- is for entertainment purposes. And if this is the kind of material that OO considers valuable, then I have some great interpretations lined up:

Little Red Riding Hood -- a predictive allegory of paedophilia?

Jack and Jill -- primitive financial forecasting and the first documented appearance of trickle-down economics.

Humpty Dumpty -- early recognition of the role of calcium in maintaining structural integrity in the body.

I await the call from the OO moderators with eager anticipation.

Congratulations, that article was almost as useful as the Bible itself, in other words, not at all. Both your piece and the "good" book are full of multi-interpretable, extraneous, irrelevant drivel.

I've got an interpretation of Genesis for you. None of it is *meant* to mean anything. It's just cobbled together bits of tradition by multiple writers from the pre-science era of human myth and superstition, where anybody's ramblings could (if repeated often enough by enough people) become lore/law.

Actually, on second reading, I still can't work out if the article is meant as a criticism, an alternative, or a tongue-in-cheek parody of the subject. So forgive me if I took it the wrong way. :D