The Adam & Eve

Fan Club

 

Yahweh’s apparent command

Genesis 2:16 is incomplete. It must be read together with Genesis 2:17 to form one sentence. When read together, the alleged command turns out to be a health warning.

 

 

Genesis 2:16 (Section 10): “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;’”  … (2/17): ‘but of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

 

+       The Lord God commands1 the man

+       ‘You may eat freely of every tree of the garden’

 

               The Lord God does not give His reason for issuing the command2

               It is not stated why the communication form of ‘command’ is used3,4

               The Lord God does not command the man to be obedient5

÷

 

Footnotes Section 10

 

10.1 … There is a major translation problem in this verse. Young’s literal translation goes as follows: ‘And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; …” The highly ambiguous Hebrew term tsavah is here translated not as ‘command’ but as ‘laying a charge on.’1 The Septuagint translates tsavah as ‘gave a charge to.’2 Tsavah is first translated as ‘command’ in Jerome’s Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate,3 made ca. 380 A.D.

10.1.1 … Strong’s dictionary offers the following translation options for the Hebrew term tsavah: to command, charge, give orders, lay charge, give charge to, order, appoint, commission and so on1

10.1.1.1 … The term tsavah appears to suggest the notion of (legal) injunction or order, or instruction. If the Lord God instructs rather than commands the man, then both Paul’s and Augustine’s interpretation of the story become doubtful

10.1.2 … Whether or not ‘laying a charge on’ is equivalent to ‘command’ is anybody’s guess since the precise meaning of the term ‘laying charge‘, that is to say, when it is first used, cannot now be determined1

10.1.2.1 … At least one modern bible translates the term tsavah as ‘gave a warning.’ The latter translation appears (and this is speculation) to fit best with the whole content of the (health?) warning, in other words, ‘eat and die’ (equivalent to ‘smoke and die’), or of the command, charge/demand or instruction, namely: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” It’s the second part of the statement, and which describes the immediate and automatic penalty resulting from disregarding the Lord God’s injunction, that indicates that the Lord God’s ‘charge’ is given as a (health) warning1 and not as a strict and decisive (military style) command, to wit: “Don’t do this!”

10.1.2.1.1 … If the Lord God’s injunction to the man is a (health) warning rather than an outright command, then it appears that the man disregards a warning (or a demand), rather than that he breaks a direct command. Whether or not disregarding this (or any) (health) warning amounts to sin (i.e. to (moral) failure), resulting in death, as Paul claims, is anybody’s guess. Note that the adam, having (allegedly) eaten of the forbidden tree, does not die, at least not for another 900 years

10.1.3 … Jerome’s propensity for bending his translations to suit his (i.e. the Church’s) current need (i.e. for a high class, jurisprudence based translation) is well documented. All Christian clerics, indeed clerics of all religious cults, suffer a four-fold conflict of interest1 (or loyalty) when translating, and which usually means interpreting. They are first and foremost bound (i.e. when translating/interpreting) by their vow of obedience to their order or religious sect (or its current interest). Some clerics, for instance Jesuits, are also bound to obey the pope and his interests. Though clerics do not take a vow to speak the truth, some do feel bound to express the truth as the find it. Some clerics even feel bound to serve the laity and which trusts them implicitly. Therefore a cleric’s vow to serve his Order, or the leader of his Order, hence the prime master, conflicts with his interest, if any, to uncover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and to speak or write it truthfully in his own interest and in the interest of the laity whom he claims to serve. In the case of fanatic clerics, the interest of (or loyalty to) their respective religious Orders or sects always overrides their interest in (or loyalty to) the truth and/or their own welfare and/or the welfare of the laity. Hence, all ‘facts’ presented (i.e. as true) by religious clerics are suspect, because biased, and best considered as ‘Gospel Truth,’ i.e. that is to say, if not as (white - to grey - to black) lie, then at least as possibly pernicious disinformation.2 In short, the last person to trust when one’s personal happiness is at stake (sic!) is a religious cleric (i.e. of any religion)

10.1.3.1 … The severe conflict of interest, i.e. between serving the interests of the their order (or cult) and/or their Church, i.e. by bending translation and interpretation to suit its (immediate) needs, and serving the needs of the lay people by providing them with the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is striking in the writings of Paul, Augustine and Luther. Paul makes flat assertions not based on (verifiable) fact, assertions that become crucial premises that serve as building blocks for the new Christos cult he is inventing. Augustine writes outright fiction (i.e. lies), and which he passes off as fact. All of Augustine’s writings are religious fiction (i.e. Rel-fi),1 specifically his utopian novel, The City of God. As the quotations from Luther’s commentary on our story show, he lies without any show of conscience when it suits his purpose

10.1.3.1.1 … An example of Augustine’s brazen and wholly false invention, and which is intended to ‘plant’ false evidence, goes as follows: “The woman would not have believed the serpent spoke the truth, nor would the man have preferred the request of his wife to the command of God, nor have supposed that it was a venial transgression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership of sin. The wicked deed, then, that is to say, the transgression of eating the forbidden fruit, was committed by persons who were already wicked. That ‘evil fruit’ could be brought forth only by ‘a corrupt tree’”. None of this is in the story. The term ‘evil’ is not used in the story. That Augustine is not immediately condemned for attempting to write the foregoing into the story, indeed the fact that he is later canonized, is a great miracle

10.1.3.2 … In John’s Gospel, Jesus states: “I am the way, the truth and the life”. In practice, the Church eventually alters the content of Jesus’ statement to mean: ‘The Church (or a specific sect or Order within the Church, or the Christian faith as content of articles of belief) is the way, the truth and the life.’ The outcome of this (subtle?) shift of view is that clerics no longer serve the truth but the Church and the primates who run it

10.2 … All reasons ascribed later by Christian fanatics to the Lord God for issuing His command are fiction1

10.2.1 ... A command (or warning) that prohibits an act can be issued for at least six reasons. 1. A command (or warning) serves to protect (the interests of) the individual issuing the command. 2. A command (or warning) serves to protect (the interests, or health or life) of the individual to whom the command is given. 3. A command (or warning) serves to protect that which is prohibited. 4. A command  (i.e. as prohibition or warning) is issued to test the (capacity for) obedience (or subservience) of the one commanded.1 5. A command (or warning) is issued as an experiment to see what will happen next. 6. A command (or warning) is issued for fun and games. And so on  and on ….

10.2.1.1 … It is this command (rather than demand or warning) option which Paul chooses centuries later to serve as premise for his unsubstantiated and unverifiable theory of sin and of death that results from sin. Either Paul does not read the story, or he simply cherry picks the bits that provide the perfect premise or ground on which he builds his flawed 1st Adam – 2nd Adam theory, that is to say, in support of his initial revelation, whilst disregarding the factual content of the statements of the Lord God, found both in this verse and, more importantly, in verse 41

10.2.1.1.1 … That neither Paul nor Augustine discuss the extraordinary statement of the Lord God in verse 41, namely “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad”, and its massive implications, namely that the man has ‘risen to’ or ‘acquired’ the status of the elohim, i.e. of the gods, is quite extraordinary

10.3 … Since the Lord God appears to issue a command, it appears that the relationship between the Lord God and the adam is that of master and servant (or slave, i.e. labourer1). Since nothing is known of the personality of the adam, it is not known if the latter is formed with the capacity or freedom to resist the Lord God’s command (or instruction or warning)

10.3.1 … The relationship between the Lord God and the adam is not defined (or elaborated)

10.4 … The inventors of the Christian religion, specifically Paul, and, later on, Augustine and Luther, - but not the Jesus of the Gospels - make breaking the Lord God’s first ever command (or law) a mortal (for all) sin.1 Augustine claims that this sin2 - the original sin - is so heinous that it completely changes (i.e. corrupts) (the) man3 and all his seed, which as (un-baptised) mass or clot of corruption is worthy of damnation. Augustine actually claims that the sin, or its affect, is transmitted in (the) man’s semen (but not via the woman’s egg), thereby becoming endemic to the whole human race4,5

10.4.1 … Their assertion, namely that breaking the Lord God’s command amounts to sin (i.e. to sin as such) is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, either from the original text, since the Lord God remains silent on the issue, or from observation of the whole activities range of human beings. Since both Paul and Augustine claim, or seem to claim, continuous communication with God (i.e. Paul with Christos (Hebrew:  messiah), and Augustine with the (Lord) God), and, since denial of (hence lack of (blind) faith in) their communications with (or revelations of) the Christos and/or the (Lord) God is deemed heresy, few dare question their assertions (on pain of condemnation, excommunication, torture and/or death). As a consequence, their flat assertions (i.e. their wild speculations) gradually become primary articles of faith (i.e. of Christian ideology or belief). Anyone who reads the story of Adam and Eve cold, that is to say, not through the tunnel of Paul’s vision, will immediately see that both Paul’s and Augustine’s interpretations of the story are, if not wrong, then at least very doubtful

10.4.2 … For sin read: ‘missing the mark or aim,’ at least that is the original meaning of the Greek word hamartia used by Paul to denote moral1 failure. Originally hamartia has no connection with morality

10.4.2.1 … It is (the now believed to be mythic, because composite) Moses who first acquaints the fore-skinless Hebrew tribes (or tribe?) with the concept of morality when he produces, as an act of apparently divine social engineering, the starter-pack of 10 commandments and an almost endless codicil of other commandments. Whether or not breaking a command as such,1 hence disobedience, is a moral lapse, i.e. a mortal sin, is not stated by Moses

10.4.2.1.1 … Since Christian ideologists later (i.e. more than 1000 plus years later) claim that the breaking of the command of the Lord God not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is a sinful act and, moreover, the reason for the ‘sending forth’ or ‘driving out’ from the garden in Eden - and which turns out (in verse 42) to be factually incorrect -, the fact that the forbidden tree offers the knowledge of good and bad is, in relation to their claim, a red herring. Eating from any tree, having been forbidden, would have sufficed to fulfil the requirements for the mortal (i.e. as in leading to death) ‘sin’ of  ‘disobedience’, and which fanatic Christian ideologists, starting with Paul, need to justify their theory of the alleged ‘fall.’ Nowhere in the original Hebrew version of the story is a ‘fall’ mentioned; nor is there any mention of ‘sin,’ nor indeed of wrongdoing, nor of ‘evil’, not to mention disobedience

10.4.3 … Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller state that man’s very nature, often translated as ‘flesh’ (Greek: sarx), sometimes translated as ‘soul’ (wrongly derived from the Hebrew term nefesh, meaning ‘body’), rather than his capacity to live his nature more fully, is changed, indeed corrupted by the events described in the story.1 Quite the opposite is found in the original text of the story. The Lord God actually “sends the man forth from the garden” into the world free of any Law, to live out and fulfil his very nature, that is to say, to “serve the ground”, whatever that means. Later claims that the man is “sent forth from the garden” somehow impaired or flawed are simply false

10.4.3.1 … Augustine invents as follows: “To this infantine (So!?, the adam is an infant, my insertion) imbecility (not in the story) the first man did not fall by his lawless presumption and just sentence; but human nature was in his person vitiated and altered to such an extent, that he suffered in his members the warring of disobedient lust (read: an erection, my insertion), and became subject to the necessity of dying. And what he himself had become by sin (note the false nominalization of ‘sin’ (i.e. from sinning), my insertion) and punishment, such he generated in those whom he begot; that is to say, subject to sin and death.” And again: “For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright; but man, being of his own will corrupted, and justly condemned, begot corrupted and condemned children.” Apparently neither the storyteller nor the Lord God are aware of any of the foregoing ‘facts’ since they fail to mention them

10.4.4 … Redemption from the affects of this terrible sin (note that neither Paul nor Augustine specify the precise nature of the transgression of which the adam is (allegedly) found guilty and condemned), endemic to the whole human race, requires a redeemer. Enter Paul’s Christ, the anointed one (i.e. the christos), i.e. the 2nd adam (or proto man of perfect goodness because spirit-full (i.e. breath-full) rather than soul-full)) to eliminate the screw-up of the 1st Adam (or proto man (i.e. of the life beyond the ‘sinful flesh/nature’, so proclaimed by Paul) of perfect sinfulness or evil, i.e. of corrupted soul, i.e. of the  nefesh)1,2

10.4.4.1 … Paul’s flat (i.e. lacking evidence and not capable of being verified or falsified) assertion that “Therefore (or wherefore) as through one man sin entered the world and through sin, death - so death came to all, in that all sinned” is pure fantasy, indeed malicious lying. The Jesus of the Gospels makes no such claim1

10.4.4.1.1 … Paul is a self-made mystery cult founder.1 From his letters it appears that he has absolutely no knowledge of the content of Jesus’ teachings as they appear in fourfold elaboration in the Gospels. Paul’s almost 100 Bible quotes are taken from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, save for three of dubious origin that can be found in the Gospels. That fact that Paul fails to refer to the actual teaching of Jesus, specifically in relation to sin, suggests that either he believes himself to have direct knowledge, courtesy of his revelation experience, or that the teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels have not yet been fully formulated, indeed invented. Paul’s silence on the ‘historical’ Jesus is loud, but, apparently, not loud enough

10.4.4.1.1.1 … The mystery cult which Paul founds is, if one believes Celsus, the Jewish version of the ancient (Egyptian) death and resurrection of the hero cult (complete with the bread and wine Eucharist) and which, as Dionysus cult, flourishes in at least a dozen variations in the Middle East, one of which is regularly practiced in Tarsus, Paul’s birthplace. Paul’s genius shows itself in his skill in cleverly mixing selected data from the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the basic storyline suggesting true historical fact) with elements of the Egyptian (or Dionysian) mystery cult, then glossing the whole shebang with the highly sophisticated Greek philosophical notions of the soul (i.e. pneuma), the spirit (i.e. psyche) and a made-over to appear loving and caring God a\nd who is almost unrecognisable as the jealous and vengeful, and, indeed, murderous Yahweh of the Pentateuch. Then he concocts the notion of universal sin  (i.e. as self existent entity), to be used as the BIG STICK, and which he derives from the story of Adam and Eve via deliberate misinterpretation. Paul’s view on the absolute nature of sin (that is to say, of ‘sin’ rather than of ‘sins’, and found only in his Letter to the Romans) differs radically from the relativism (more precisely stated, non-absolutism) of Jesus’ teaching about sins, sinning and sinfulness (to wit, some are righteous (i.e. sinless), some are unrighteous (i.e. sinful)), as does his (i.e. Paul’s) view about the origin of (the self-existent entity) ‘sin’  

10.4.4.2 … Paul’s 1st Adam (i.e. the bad guy with corrupted flesh/soul) - 2nd Adam (i.e. the good guy with/of stainless spirit/breath) theory is an intellectual (and rhetorical) conjuring, indeed confidence trick. He provides no hard (i.e. compelling) evidence to support either his 1st Adam or his 2nd Adam descriptions. According to the statement made by the Lord God (in verse 41), namely “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad”, it does appear that the man ‘rises’ rather than ‘falls’, and which would not have happened if the alleged transgression had made him ‘bad’, i.e. corrupt; unless, of course, ‘one of us’ status is achieved by means of transgression. If it is true that the man ‘rises’ rather than ‘falls’, then what need of a Redeemer, i.e. of a 2nd Adam who removes the 1st Adam’s sin (and which is not mentioned in the story) by ‘lavering’ his corrupted soul (or body, or whole person, i.e. nefesh)

10.4.5 … No-where in the story does the Lord God state that the breaking of his command, indeed that disobedience amounts to (a) sin, indeed to (a) sin that transfers automatically to the (flesh of the) whole of humanity, and which thereafter emerges (i.e. is born) as a mass or lump of corruption (see Augustine). Nor does the Lord God state that non-adherence to his command will be punished by loss of grace, as Augustine falsely claims. The Lord God clearly states that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge results in ‘death in the day,’ making ‘punishment’ by Him superfluous

10.5 … This is one of the most crucial points of (but missing from) the whole story. Paul, Augustine1 and Luther will later claim that disobedience (and which they appear to claim is a sin, indeed both Origen and Augustine, and a number of Fathers in between, suggest that the adam’s sin is the Original Sin, though elsewhere it is written that the woman commits the original sin2) causes the sending forth of the man from the garden, i.e. the final outcome of his alleged downfall. In the story, the Lord God does not state that He sentences the man, the woman and the serpent because they have been disobedient. or because they have sinned. He does, however, clearly state (i.e. in verse 41) His immediate reason for sending forth the man from the garden, namely that he should not eat from the tree of life “and live forever.” The Lord God does not give His true reason why He does not want the man to “live forever”

10.5.1 … Augustine will later state (i.e. in his most famous piece of creative fiction writing, i.e. The City of God) that “no laws were laid upon Adam save the one simple command of obedience.” The Lord God does not command the man to be obedient. He commands him not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad because doing so will bring about the man’s death on the same day. Augustine lies about the actual content of the story.1 His lie is not condemned by the Pope. To this day it has not been condemned. When Pope Zozimus (or any pope) accepts Augustine’s lie, indeed his web of lies, as true, then he too is guilty of ‘planting’ false evidence, hence of deception, thereby also becoming worthy of condemnation

10.5.1.1 … Since Augustine is not only intelligent but extremely subtle (i.e. cunning, i.e. as a serpent) in the way he presents his case for (the alleged) Original Sin - sin is not mentioned in the story, nor indeed wrongdoing of any kind - and which brings about the (alleged) fall - there is no mention of a ‘fall’ in the story - of the adam, it must assumed (and this is an assumption, hence not verifiable) either that he has not read (the fine detail of) the story of Adam and Eve, and therefore is unaware of the true facts as presented in the story; or that he deliberately misrepresents, i.e. lies about the content of the story1 in order to sustain, expand and harden Paul’s disastrously flawed theory of Adam’s sin (that Paul, following the mistranslation of the Septuagint, uses the proper name ‘Adam’, rather than the original description, the adam, is deliberate deception) and its terminal consequence, namely that the adam sins and dies through disobedience2 - and which Paul invents to produce his 1st Adam - 2nd Adam salvation solution

10.5.1.1.1 … Augustine, like his successor Luther, an Augustinian monk, is a consummate and wholly unconscionable liar (i.e. a fiction writer). He passes off his bizarre and verifiably false opinions about the story of Adam and Eve as true, despite vigorous opposition. Apparently neither Pelagius nor John of Eclanum bother to read the fine detail of the story. Had they done so, they might have won the argument1

10.5.1.1.1.1 … Actually, Pelagius did win the argument. However, Augustine was the more cunning and ruthless politician cum cult manager. He persuaded (i.e. bribed) the Emperor to force the Pope to change his mind. Augustine’s bogus Original Sin theory was accepted. It gave the Church the Big Stick (i.e. proof of guilt at birth) and which it used mercilessly to multiply and sustain its power, in the process accumulating vast wealth. By the end of the 13th century, the Church is reputed to have owned one third of Europe

10.5.1.1.2 … The term ‘disobedience’ first appears in Paul’s letters found in the New Testament. The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, who, as Son of God, or so the Gospel inventor John claims, would have been better informed than Paul and, indeed, Augustine and Luther, makes no reference to the adam’s alleged disobedience and/or its significance, and certainly does not claim that disobedience is the adam’s sin. Nor does Jesus claim that the adam’s sin transfers automatically (in his semen, according to Augustine) to all his off-spring, thereby bringing about their corruption, damnation and death. Jesus does not claim that he has come to redeem the adam’s (alleged) sin

10.5.2 … If the term ‘sin’ is interpreted to mean ‘missing the mark’ (Greek, hamartia; Hebrew, chatta’ah), then close reading of our story will reveal that the Lord God, that is to say, Yahweh of the gods, commits the first sin (of a whole series). For, in verse 12, the Lord God states, “It is not good that the adam should be alone; …”, thereby admitting an error (hence a mark missed) on His part