The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Interpreting Genesis > Comments

Interpreting Genesis : Comments

By David Young, published 16/2/2009

An alternative version of Adam and the Woman in the Garden of Eden.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Dear Paul and Daviy,

"Christianity does not have a monopoly on Genesis and your input carries no more weight than any one else." - Daviy

Agree. Genesis was ancient when Christianity split from Judaism.

Around Jesus' time, it was being written, as is evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

One might think of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" in the Completed Works as being fully original. Fact is, that in Elizabethian times favourite themes were often revisited by playwrights. For example, Hamlet may had several versions and interpretations before Shakespeare's definitive contribution.

Changes act like Chinese whispers and meanings transmute. Original meanings are lost - edited out. After several revisions, it becomes necessary to have a substantial revision to reinstate integrity, where the errors are obvious. (The same basic principle applies to calendars.)

Likewise, Genesis would have been through centuries of drafts, wherein, the Work needs to re-engineered to fit contemporary purposes. Herein, Daviy's contribution has validity in that his interpretation is one in an ongoing series of drafts.

Oly
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 9:05:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It all goes back to, or rather extends, in every present moment, from trees. Doesnt it.

The body-mind of Man, male or female, arising in, pervaded by, and sublimed by the Love-Bliss-Radiance of the Infinitely Radiant Field of Indestructible Conscious Light---aka the "garden of eden".

And what is the tree, or the tree of life?

It is the skeletal structure of the human body-mind, especially the spinal column and its upper terminal the brain--with its two halves, the "male"-left and "female"-right sides. This structure provides (or is) the channel, via the central nervous system, and its sympathetic and para-sympathetic extensions (ida and pingala), by which the entire body is enlivened with Radiant Energy or SHAKTI

In the truly sane, Spiritually Awake person, centred in the Heart, these structures are fully awake in a state of balanced equanimity. Neither the left or the right side being "superior", and thus seeking to dominate the other side.

Patriarchal "culture", beginning with the banishment of Lilith, has always wrongly asserted that the "male" principle is "superior", and has consequently been engaged in a more than 3 millenia struggle to subdue, and even destroy the "female" principle.

Another potent symbol of this fight to the death struggle is St George on his horse, fighting off, and trying to kill the dragon, which is a symbol of the life force or the Goddess, or SHAKTI.

This absurd drama has reached its almost terminal conclusion in our lifetime.

Trees: http://www.fearnomorezoo.org/trees/main.php

The patriarchal fight against SHAKTI or incarnate happiness.

http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters/toc-aprilmay2006.html

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 9:59:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you're all trying to get out of the Christian and Jewish texts much more than is in there.
They are both mush more like historical novels than anything else we cn think of. They reflect a pre-scientific world view that has to be interpreted itself before it can be used to interpret our own world view.
And as many have written, the 'books' themselves were written and, especially, added to over many years, then selected by a series of committees as to which ones would be deemed uthoritative, and which would not. The writing and additions reflected power struggles of the day(s), with the final versions reflecting those positions which gained supremacy. The degree of supremacy they gained can be seen from the degree to which they were able to displace their rivals: in the case of the beginning of the Genesis stories, the supremacy which the Adam-first group gained was not great enough to displace the other, probably earlier story, in which man and woman were created together. The result was that both stories were included in the sacred text, whilst all the other contributions from Enoch were displaced.
Both stories are an attempt by people 2000 to 3000 years ago to understand how they came to be there, especially in relation to all the other people of the region (the Levant). The texts are reflective of history, and to a much lesser exent of science, but they are not either. Looking to them to understand how our brains work is fruitless: looking to them to understand what those writers thought about who they were and why they were here is as much as you will find.
Posted by camo, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 10:56:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver
What is your opinion of Enoch as a source? To me it reads in a much more coherent manner than the various Christian and Jewish sources.
Ho Hum
Many people are seeking truth (however you wish to define it) in many different ways. I have no quarrel with anyone pursuing their particular path. I cannot say that any of it is right or wrong because I do not know. Your references where interesting.
The three organizations I object to are Christianity, Judaism and Islam because they all seek to impose their truth (and Law) on others. My own position is Agnostic leaning towards Sheilaism (a religion of one).
Camo
Using the books of Enoch and Jubilees, coupled with the known history of Suma it is possible to date the Garden of Eden incident to about 4500BC (with a margin of error of about 500 years) by matching with the great flood in Suma and the story of Noah. Jubilees is an Almanac with year one as the expulsion of Adam for the Garden of Eden. At about the same time what we know as 'civilization' came into being. Basically the human race went from 0 to 100 in .0005 of a second. Something definitely happened about that time.
Ancient literature such as the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' show that although their technologies may have been crude they where no less intelligent that we are. If we can find the key it is entirely possible that someone left writings that will tell us what happened.
My best guess at this stage is that the event was the advent of internal consciousness.
My interest in this is that if we can find out what happened, and what went wrong, we can possibly correct it. I am almost convinced that the error is the way we use judgment.
What makes Genesis so useful is that it can be easily be read to indicate the advent of internal consciousness and the results of judgment, and it is a story that is familiar. It could also be correct.
Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 1:04:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daviy
I object to you asserting that biblical scholarship is biased because it has been practiced by Christians. The source critical tools that are applied to biblical texts have nothing to do with Christianity and are recognised by Jewish scholarship. Would you please look at any mainstream commentary on Genesis 1-11 to see the results of this research for yourself.

I also disagree that the bicameral mind has much to do with how we are present to ourselves. People with a section through the corpus callosum do not lose this ability. Much or your argument is based on a very superficial understanding of modern hermeneutics and neurophysiology. They cannot be taken seriously.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 1:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

I suspect Daviy was merely recognizing researchers adopt inferential frames and therefore bring predispositions, when interpreting ancient books. I find Daviy very balanced.

Your Church's version Genesis states God cursed Canaan, son of Ham, because Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness:

“And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Genesis 9:21-25 (KJV)

The Bible’s account would seem to show the Christian diety to be unreasonable, because Ham was the ill-doer. The account needs to be harmonized by an editor. If fact, Genesis was edited, assuming you believe the Dead Scrolls genuine:

On “revision” of Genesis is evident in the Genesis Florilegium (4Q252) Plate 5.

“The Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his son had done to him and he said, ‘Cursed be Caanan; he shall be his brothers’ meanest slave’. He did not curse Ham, but on the contrary, his son, because God had already blessed Noah’s sons: 'And in the tents of Shem they will dwell'." Columns 2:6-8

That is, God felt he couldn’t take back his blessing. Still seems a bit tough on poor Caanan.

Given the historical veracity of the Qumran text, would it not be reasonable for a Christian to accept this account over the Council of Nicaea’s choice of works?
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 3:12:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy