Is the Adam and Eve story true?

@Justin,

People embrace such a notion because it is concrete, circularly self-justifying, and you can teach it as a parable to a child.

Such a story is far more likely to persist in lore than is some abstract exposition on the human notions of good/evil judgements.

@Aedes,

Aedes;82574 wrote:

People embrace such a notion because it is concrete, circularly self-justifying, and you can teach it as a parable to a child.

I appreciate that Paul. But then again, you have this:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2071649529_4987a80c13.jpg

William

@Aedes,

Aedes;82574 wrote:

People embrace such a notion because it is concrete, circularly self-justifying, and you can teach it as a parable to a child.

Such a story is far more likely to persist in lore than is some abstract exposition on the human notions of good/evil judgements.

This is one perspective. But I suspect there is something more to it. Something that is within us all. Some shadowy aspect of our being. :detective:

Rich

@Justin,

I voted for literal truth so it isnt entirely lopsided. Very Happy

It appears I am a lone soldier of literal truth Sad

.... where be all the fundies at?

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;82603 wrote:

I voted for literal truth so it isnt entirely lopsided.

It appears I am a lone soldier of literal truth .... where be all the fundies at?

I would have voted for the literal truth but I just can't come to grips with a talking serpent. Like come on now ... who ever heard of a talking serpent?

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;82604 wrote:

I would have voted for the literal truth but I just can't come to grips with a talking serpent. Like come on now ... who ever heard of a talking serpent?

Rich

You find the talking serpent to be the most unlikely thing?

@Justin,

OK here is a quick sketch of an esoteric interpretation of the story. I think it is an orthodox interpretation.

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - what does it take to have knowledge of good and evil? It takes self-consciousness, the ability to make judgements. So it actually represents the 'descent of consciousness' into self-hood or separate existence. So the 'Fall' is actually 'falling into existence'; having fallen into existence, you are 'doomed to labour'. Importantly, this was a consequence of a conscious act.
The Snake represents creaturely consciousness which 'goes around on its belly in the dust'. It represents your animal nature.
Jesus says 'Come unto me, all ye who labour, and I will give you rest' (Matt 11:28). This is because Jesus is the bridge between sorrowful earthly existence and the plenitude of 'life in the spirit'. He is pointing 'beyond existence' to the realm of spirit.

@richrf,

richrf;82604 wrote:

I would have voted for the literal truth but I just can't come to grips with a talking serpent. Like come on now ... who ever heard of a talking serpent?

Rich

I take it from your response you have witnessed the "irreverent" humor of Ricky Gervais, no?

William

@William,

William;82643 wrote:

I take it from your response you have witnessed the "irreverent" humor of Ricky Gervais, no?

William

Hi William,

I don't know Ricky, but I hope he has a good sense of humor. Smile

Rich

---------- Post added 08-11-2009 at 07:54 PM ----------

jeeprs;82631 wrote:

OK here is a quick sketch of an esoteric interpretation of the story. I think it is an orthodox interpretation.

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - what does it take to have knowledge of good and evil? It takes self-consciousness, the ability to make judgements. So it actually represents the 'descent of consciousness' into self-hood or separate existence. So the 'Fall' is actually 'falling into existence'; having fallen into existence, you are 'doomed to labour'. Importantly, this was a consequence of a conscious act.

The Snake represents creaturely consciousness which 'goes around on its belly in the dust'. It represents your animal nature.

It seems like a choice is to be made between knowledge by picking from the Tree of Knowledge (consciousness of oneself) and immortality (the Tree of Life). But in choosing knowledge, then one must then deal with the all dualities in life including life and death. It is part of the choice. So Adam and Eve must leave immortality in order to become conscious of themselves.

The serpent who tempts seems to be that desire within us, that calling, to seek out and explore. To discover who we are. The serpent in mythology is often used to depict the devine - the all-in-all.

Rich

@Justin,

I don't see how immortality is something that can be 'chosen' or how the symbology represents this as something that was on offer. The apple was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I think it must signify self-awareness; because prior to self-awareness, there is no judgement as to good and evil. The serpent said that if the fruit was eaten:

Quote:

your eyes will be opened, and ye will be as God, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:6).

After which, they realised they were naked (which indicates self-consciousness.)

I will leave it there, though, you could spend months discussing various interpretations of Genesis, (especially in regards to gender relationships, stewardship of the Earth, and the religious attitude to knowledge.) I was only making a point about an esoteric interpretation.

One other thing: it is interesting that the serpent plays a very different role in Oriental and Semitic mythology.

In the East, the Serpent (naga) is generally a symbol of wisdom and/or power. It symbolises the 'kundalini' said to be a psychic energy that is associated with spiritual enlightenment. In the West, the serpent is generally associated with evil or with the Fall and was banished to the lowest realm of creation as a result of deceiving Eve.

@Justin,

Jeeprs -- how can something be both esoteric and orthodox?

Unless you're arguing that only a tiny minority hold this orthodox view.

@Justin,

What is the conflict between esoteric and orthodoxy? I think esoteric interpretation can exist within orthodoxy. But not many will be interested in them. Esoteric by definition only ever appeals to a minority.

@Justin,

As I have mentioned in this thread the unfortunate role "mankind" interpreted woman, in their interpretation of genesis, I would like to bring this video back for your listening pleasure. It was brought once before by Catchabula. To me it represents the beauty that is woman and the Earth that is her home. Please take note of the lyrics from that perspective and the one line that says: "Bring me your peace, and my wounds will heal". Here is again Celtic Woman and The Voice. Enjoy

YouTube - Celtic Woman - the Voice

William

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;82659 wrote:

What is the conflict between esoteric and orthodoxy? I think esoteric interpretation can exist within orthodoxy. But not many will be interested in them. Esoteric by definition only ever appeals to a minority.

It's not that they're antonyms, but rather that things tend not to be esoteric any longer by the time they've achieved orthodoxy.

Though I guess the way to resolve this particular question would be to describe what you feel is the truly orthodox interpretation and then compare the two. I certainly think that there is a role for allegorical interpretation within orthodox opinion. And an orthodox belief that Adam and Eve existed is different than a fundamentalist's assertion that they did.

@Justin,

In early theology there was much more of an understanding of the 'inner meaning' of scripture, specifically from writers such as Origen, who was (unfortunately, in my opinion) anathematized because of his views. Origen believed that the Bible:

Quote:

. Source

He felt that the 'literalist' approach to the Bible for example, literal interpretations of the creation myth, was a travesty of the faith:

Quote:

"Literalists," he complained, "believe such things about [God] as would not be believed of the most savage and unjust of men". ibid

This is in the first century, mind you!

In my case, I studied Comparitive Religion and read from all the traditions for many years. So my intellectual framework is now really the 'perennial philosophy' in the light of which I interpret such teachings now. I am not antagnostic to Christian orthodoxy but I don't believe I am within that framework any more.

@Justin,

I thought you were referring to contemporary orthodoxy and not to early Christianity.

But also let's bear in mind that the Creation story is FAR older than Christianity, and the ancient Jewish theology that predates the Christian era certainly has claim to a certain primary orthodoxy as well. (Of course modern, rabbinic Judaism is younger than Christianity and should not be seen as a reflection of the ancient practices).

@Lily,

Lily;82461 wrote:

I often wonder, those who belive in a literal truth in the Bible, which one of the creations myths do they belive, the first chapter or the second?

Most people I know favor the first one for the creation of everything but mankind, and they favor the second creation story for the creation in mankind.

@hadad,

hadad;82670 wrote:

Most people I know favor the first one for the creation of everything but mankind, and they favor the second creation story for the creation in mankind.

That's a bit stupid, since the woman is created from Adam's rib in the second creation story. The first is much nicer. "For each other He created them"

@Lily,

The creation story, or at least it's roots, are also far older than anything we would recognize as Jewish religion today. There was a time when other gods were worshiped in El's temple.

Justin;82527 wrote:

Another truth that I've discovered is that Adam and Eve aren't responsible for the good and evil in this world, neither is this deity called god or his fallen angel, Satan. We are. Although we've placed this burden upon the shoulders of a series of fallacies, the burden lies on us.

Using mythology to express universal truths about humanity is not fallacy, though. Laocoon being devoured by serpents for accurately warning the Torjan's of their error is not a fallacy - it is a story that expresses the reality that truth is typically railed against, devoured. Cassandra's warnings falling upon deaf ears in Troy is not a fallacy, although certainly not a true event, because it expresses that common human reality - that good advice is ignored.

The Genesis story only becomes fallacious when it is misread as being history. Genesis is mythology. Literal reading of mythology, as Jeepers has rightly said, is a terrible, modern development. Educated people (should) know better, and should read the story as mythology.

Justin;82527 wrote:

If Adam and Eve is in fact allegorical, then so would be the idea of a heaven and hell or a God and Satan.

Exactly. They are. Good and Evil - it's all fingers pointing to the moon, but certainly not the moon.

Justin;82527 wrote:

The origination of Sin however is not. So sin, IMHO originated with man, not with Adam and Eve. Good and Evil are something we think and do, not a force in nature with a heaven and hell to separate the cream. Those are my thoughts on it.

And this is what the myth of Adam and Eve teaches, except when it is adopted and propagated by the ignorant or ill-willed.

Devout study, search for the inner meaning, is something that is lost with literalism. If we read Homer literally, the works are absurd, nonsensical. The same is true with the vast majority of the Bible. Much like a good novel, a surface reading misses the point.

@Justin,

there are a couple of etymological sources for the word 'sin'. One possibility is derived from a word for 'blood'. The other, and the one I favour, is 'to miss the mark'. It is nearer to the Gnostic understanding of sin being cognitive, instead of just volitional.

Augustine was largely responsible for the way the doctrine of original sin subsequently developed. Do you know the Eastern Orthodox churches accept neither the doctrine of Original Sin (in the way the West does) NOR the Doctrine of Atonement? It is amazing, really, in that these are such prominent aspects of Western Christianity.

Philosophy Forum

Is the Adam and Eve story true?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know