What can we gather from Genesis?

[marco]

Can we extract anything good from the Genesis account of creation? God apparently told Adam, the first human: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." He didn't say why he had planted poisonous berries in a perfect orchard. Adam seems to have lived on, having escaped the dangerous garden.


We can extract beautiful meanings from the tales of Hans Andersen, such as the Little Mermaid who learns that pleasure comes at a great price. From the story of Orpheus and Eurydice in Greek mythology we can understand that a man can enter his dark psyche to find something precious, only to have it snatched away.


Can we learn anything useful from the Genesis creation story?

If we accept the existence of Neanderthal man do we simply throw Genesis in the bucket?

[PinSeeker]

But the text says that they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so if their nakedness was good they wouldn't have had any reason to see themselves as less than good for their nakedness, which is still the reason the text says they hid themselves. Get it?

Well, I get what you're saying, sure, but it's... Well, with all due respect, what you're saying, how you are seeing this, is quite shallow. Not that you're shallow; I'm certain you're not. But what you're thinking/saying is... well, it's just a bit misdirected. Let me explain:

Before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve had not committed any sin. Afterwards, however, everything they said and did, even if in and of itself was good, was tainted with sin, they couldn't keep from sinning, even in doing something good. So, in looking on their nakedness, which in and of itself is not a sinful thing, they did so sinfully. Therefore, they were ashamed of their nakedness. Figuratively speaking, they didn't want to be seen for who/what they were, so they put something on to cover themselves (or at least so they thought).

Hey, we do the same thing, do we not? And I'm not merely talking about shirts or pants or dresses. We -- just like Adam and Eve after the Fall -- are ashamed of our nakedness, both literally and figuratively. Hey, imagine that! We are all -- every single one of us -- self-body-shamers! At least figuratively, anyway.

"Figuratively." See what I did there? Pun intended, I guess.

Oh well. Grace and peace to you, Athetotheist.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 25 by Athetotheist]
Question
If you accept the Genesis account as metaphor, how can you be so literal in your belief in Yahweh demanding absolute loyalty?
Answer
I base my opinion on the metaphors themselves and the indicated responses of the Israelites as recorded, Lord, King, Father, are all ancient associations with exclusive power.

And it comes back to "exclusive power" again. Is that what attracts you to the Yahweh concept? What's so special about conceiving of a single [presumably male] deity as exclusively powerful? Is it more comforting? More exhilarating? What?

[Mithrae]

Reply to Athetotheist.

I have read more into this passage than simple nakedness. I think that it is shown as you say, that there is nothing wrong or sinful in the original primate state of not having clothes.
The primates have made a huge discovery in self awareness symbolized by the moral tree of good and evil. Yahweh asks them, who told them they were naked. The answer is that they themselves have become self aware.

We could speculate about what developmental breakthrough ,in human evolution, might correspond to this depicted Genesis event, In my mind it corresponds to mans early use of tools and possibly even fire. This is early man starting to 'enlarge' his perception of himself and of his capacity to both change and destroy his Yahweh paradise.

I doubt that there's any clear 1 to 1 correlation between the story as a whole and a particular point of human development as we currently understand it, but I agree that it quite probably was originally intended as an allegory for human [development of] intelligence, self-awareness, agriculture and civilization. [Not necessarily in an evolutionary sense as we understand it today, of course.]

As you've mentioned, the story of Cain and Abel seems to focus on the contrast and tension between the horticulturalist and pastoralist ways of life, with the less sedentary/civilized being deemed superior; arguably a similar theme is again seen later in Genesis with the contrast between Abraham the righteous nomadic herder and the sinful cities of the plain. The punishments meted out on Adam and Eve in the story of the fall - increased pain in childbirth (due to humans' unusually large heads) and hardship in working the ground for food - seem to reference human intelligence and agriculture respectively. Perhaps even the fact that it was Eve who first took the fruit: If women were more commonly the gatherers in primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, it would be they who first noticed that fruits were growing thicker and jucier in the places where they'd left their waste in previous seasons and began to exploit that.

Of particular interest to me are Benjamin Franklin's thoughts - almost envious, it seems - on the lifestyles he observed among the American Indians of his day. There may have been a time in the ancient near east when living examples of hunter-gatherer tribes were still around, and certainly examples of nomadic herders at the least, which is when a story like Genesis 3 may well have been created by a people or group disgusted with the crowds, diseases and other pressures of city life. But eventually cities grew bigger and more cities were founded; perhaps by Jesus' day, if not earlier, living examples of even nomadic herders were more remote and more intertwined with the civilized economies and lifestyles. Without some visible examples of more primitive societies seeming more innocent and free, such an allegorical interpretation of the story could easily be lost. And Christianity itself took root more in the cities than in the countryside, eventually developing a certain disdain for folk from the countryside (paganus). Quite ironic, considering Jesus himself is reported to have told his followers to surrender all possessions and live more like the birds of the field, very much along the lines of a 'return to the garden' kind of theme.

• Benjamin Franklin to Peter Collinson, 9 May 1753
  
  
  The proneness of human Nature to a life of ease, of freedom from care and labour appears strongly in the little success that has hitherto attended every attempt to civilize our American Indians, in their present way of living, almost all their Wants are supplied by the spontaneous Productions of Nature, with the addition of very little labour, if hunting and fishing may indeed be called labour when Game is so plenty, they visit us frequently, and see the advantages that Arts, Sciences, and compact Society procure us, they are not deficient in natural understanding and yet they have never shewn any Inclination to change their manner of life for ours, or to learn any of our Arts; When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return, and that this is not natural [to them] merely as Indians, but as men, is plain from this, that when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them. One instance I remember to have heard, where the person was brought home to possess a good Estate; but finding some care necessary to keep it together, he relinquished it to a younger Brother, reserving to himself nothing but a gun and a match-Coat, with which he took his way again to the Wilderness.
  
  Though they have few but natural wants and those easily supplied. But with us are infinite Artificial wants, no less craving than those of Nature, and much more difficult to satisfy; so that I am apt to imagine that close Societies subsisting by Labour and Arts, arose first not from choice, but from necessity: When numbers being driven by war from their hunting grounds and prevented by seas or by other nations were crowded together into some narrow Territories, which without labour would not afford them Food.

[Athetotheist]

But the text says that they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so if their nakedness was good they wouldn't have had any reason to see themselves as less than good for their nakedness, which is still the reason the text says they hid themselves. Get it?

Well, I get what you're saying, sure, but it's... Well, with all due respect, what you're saying, how you are seeing this, is quite shallow. Not that you're shallow; I'm certain you're not. But what you're thinking/saying is... well, it's just a bit misdirected. Let me explain:

Before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve had not committed any sin. Afterwards, however, everything they said and did, even if in and of itself was good, was tainted with sin, they couldn't keep from sinning, even in doing something good. So, in looking on their nakedness, which in and of itself is not a sinful thing, they did so sinfully. Therefore, they were ashamed of their nakedness. Figuratively speaking, they didn't want to be seen for who/what they were, so they put something on to cover themselves (or at least so they thought).

Hey, we do the same thing, do we not? And I'm not merely talking about shirts or pants or dresses. We -- just like Adam and Eve after the Fall -- are ashamed of our nakedness, both literally and figuratively. Hey, imagine that! We are all -- every single one of us -- self-body-shamers! At least figuratively, anyway.

"Figuratively." See what I did there? Pun intended, I guess.

Oh well. Grace and peace to you, Athetotheist.

If the story is taken figuratively, it can be bought into in that respect for the sake of the metaphor; I'm a Joseph Campbell fan myself.

Maybe I'm missing the point of this discussion and arguing the wrong point. I don't want to embarrass myself by assuming that the myth is being taken literally; I'm just trying to point out that even myth should make enough sense to be engaging.

[PinSeeker]

I'm just trying to point out that even myth should make enough sense to be engaging.

I understand that, and that's exactly why I said we are guilty of the same thing Adam and Eve were, constantly, every single day. No offense intended, but to dismiss this as somehow not making sense and/or unengaging seems to me to be classic avoidance, even to the degree of absurdity,

Grace and peace to you, Athetotheist.

[Athetotheist]

I'm just trying to point out that even myth should make enough sense to be engaging.

I understand that, and that's exactly why I said we are guilty of the same thing Adam and Eve were, constantly, every single day. No offense intended, but to dismiss this as somehow not making sense and/or unengaging seems to me to be classic avoidance, even to the degree of absurdity,

Grace and peace to you, Athetotheist.

Am I avoiding what Adam and Eve did if I accept the miseries [or blessings] which escaped from Pandora's box [or jar]?

[FWI]

Can we learn anything useful from the Genesis creation story?

Sure! The first thing we could learn is that the "events in question" are not silly stories or a collection of myths. This is obvious, because science and reality has shown that the universe and life do exist…We could also learn that physical existence didn't happen by accident, it was created! Hence, if something is created, there is a Creator. We should also be able to learn that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was a time period of many years, possibly several billions. We also can learn that there are consequences for actions deemed inappropriate, by the Creator…We should be able to learn that there is non-physical life that exists, which has abilities and influences that physical life doesn't. We can learn from the creation story that life itself also became "creators" through reproduction. So, it should be clear that the first few chapters of Genesis has offered the human beings much knowledge about the reality of what exists and how this existence is interwoven…

[marco]

This is not a scientific journal explaining man's early evolvement from his primate origins. Can you explain how this happened, to me in simple terms. Are we more or similar to other primates. If more then, in what way. Adam in primate oblivion emerges to the glare of conscious awareness on a journey out of Eden away from Yahweh, the Eden God.That is the Genesis explanation of our distant past. What is yours?

In what way do you suppose I am qualified to explain the origins of man and his development from apes? I have no idea. If one is unable to explain thunder, is it then correct to suppose it is a divine voice?

Many humans are inferior to apes, but so what? The Genesis tale does not involve development from apes; that is a reasonable idea we have come up with, a more reasonable idea than God blowing into mud and getting a living puppet.

I said we can extract clever meanings from myths and it is no great intellectual exercise to reword and refashion what was written in a supposed "holy book" and give it some sense.

Inventing a divine explanation for man and mosquitoes is something our primitive ancestors did; rain was the tears of a deity. That I cannot offer a fruitful scientific explanation, accurate in all detail, is a measure of my ignorance not a sign that God is on Saturn. What one can do is evaluate what is placed before us, as we are doing now with Genesis. Faith accepts, reason does not.

[Zzyzx]

.

The first thing we could learn is that the "events in question" are not silly stories or a collection of myths. This is obvious, because science and reality has shown that the universe and life do exist…

Is this to say that because the universe and life do exist, the Genesis account must be more than myth?

We could also learn that physical existence didn't happen by accident, it was created!

How can we learn that? By reading mythology?

Hence, if something is created, there is a Creator.

Circular reasoning. “I claim that something was created, therefore there is a creator. That is assuming the premise.

We should also be able to learn that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was a time period of many years, possibly several billions.

Who was observing and telling the story?

We also can learn that there are consequences for actions deemed inappropriate, by the Creator…

According to the myth

We should be able to learn that there is non-physical life that exists, which has abilities and influences that physical life doesn't.

According to the myth

We can learn from the creation story that life itself also became "creators" through reproduction.

Reproduction does not a big guy in the sky.

So, it should be clear that the first few chapters of Genesis has offered the human beings much knowledge about the reality of what exists and how this existence is interwoven…

That "reality" does not provide information or knowledge – only the opinions of religious writers thousands of years ago.

[Thomas123]

In what way do you suppose I am qualified to explain the origins of man and his development from apes? I have no idea. If one is unable to explain thunder, is it then correct to suppose it is a divine voice... marco

Thank You for your reply marco. I was considering your first question and I would have to say that I would consider it correct for the people you mention to regard thunder as a divine voice. Many did.
You say that you have no idea how to explain about man's development from apes.
Did it happen , when did it happen, how did it happen etc are all real issues that we should have at least some idea about before we consider the dissection of an origin myth.

This is not any fable or story from which we can extract tragic heroes and villains This is the start of choice explanation of man's emergence from nature to his stand alone status he displays today. This is the origin myth of choice of the greatest collection of ancient literature known to mankind, ..The Bible.

Surely we need to bring all our modern knowledge to the table, rather than profess that this is a subject that we do not, in any way, understand.

Many people who accept Genesis literally without enquiry are correct to call this a depiction of Yahweh. Many, after more scrutiny, still do.