The Adam & Eve
Fan Club |
Genesis 2:16: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;’” ….
Genesis 2:17 (Section 11): “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.”
+ ‘… but of the tree of
knowledge of good and bad you shall not eat …’1
+ ‘…
for in the day that you eat of it …’
+ ‘…
you shall die.’2,3
–
The
Lord God acknowledges the possibility of knowledge, but does not explain what
He means by knowledge4
–
The
Lord God acknowledges the possibility of good, but does not explain what He
means by good5
–
The
Lord God acknowledges the possibility of bad, but does not explain what He
means by bad6
–
The
Lord God does not give His reason why He does not want the man to acquire the
knowledge of good and bad7
–
The
Lord God states that death happens8
–
The
Lord God states unambiguously that the consequence of eating from the tree of
the knowledge of good and bad is ‘death in the day’, i.e. death on the same day9
–
The
Lord God does not state that breaking his command, hence disobedience, will
result in death10
–
It is
not stated why the Lord God issues the death threat since, as it later
transpires, the man does not die from eating of the tree of the knowledge of
good and bad11
–
The
Lord God does not state that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad
will have consequences other than ‘death in the day’12
–
The
Lord God does not disclose how knowledge of good and bad produces its deadly
affect
–
The
Lord God does not explain how or why death happens
–
The
Lord God does not state that death results from knowledge as such or from the
knowledge of good as such, or from the knowledge of bad as such
–
It
is not stated that the man understands (the abstract concepts of) ‘good’ and
‘bad’ since he has no knowledge of them
–
The
Lord God does not state what death means in relation to the man13
–
It is
not stated if the man understands the death threat14
–
Since
it is clearly stated that death ‘in the day’ results from eating of the tree of
the knowledge of good and bad, the command not to eat of that tree operates as
a HEALTH WARNING15
–
The
Lord God does not give His reason for issuing the HEALTH WARNING
–
The
Lord God does not state that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and bad
will make the man good and/or bad16
–
The
Lord God does not threaten the man with punishment by Him17 should
he eat from this particular tree
–
The
Lord God does not threaten the man with punishment for being disobedient18
–
Since
the Lord God issues only one command,19 the man’s behaviour is
otherwise unrestricted
–
No
moral injunctions are given
–
It is
not stated that the man understands to which particular tree the Lord God
refers since the Lord God does not give a physical description of the tree of
the knowledge of good and bad
–
It is
not stated that the Lord God takes the man to the tree of knowledge of good and
bad and points it out to him20
–
Whether
or not the man actually sees the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is not
stated21
–
Whether
or not the man’s eyes are open or shut when the HEALTH WARNING is issued is not
stated
–
The
Lord God does not command the man not to eat from the tree of life grown in the
midst of the garden22
–
It is
not stated if the knowledge of good and bad can be acquired by means other than
eating of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, i.e. such as via learning or
via transmission in semen23
÷
11.1 …Young’s
literal translation of this verse part goes as follows: “and of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not1 eat of it, for in the day
of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.”2
11.1.1 … The verbal form ‘you shall’,1
i.e. as translated in Bible version, is
in both instances false (i.e. intentionally misleading). In the original, the
tense of the verb ‘eat’ is the imperfect (to wit: ate); the verb ‘die’ is
expressed in the original as an infinitive (i.e. dying)
11.1.1.1 …
According to the New Oxford Dictionary, ‘shall’ in the second and third person
denotes a command. The term ‘shall’, used in our Bible translation, is a
deliberate error. ‘You shall not eat’ rather than ‘You ate’, and ‘You shall
die’ rather than ‘dying thou dost die’ are deliberate mistranslations that
serve to support the notion that the Lord God issues a command, and which is
not at all certain
11.1.2 …
There is a quite extraordinary problem with the translation of this verse part.1
Philo of Alexandria is completely baffled by it. That’s because his version of
the Bible, namely the Septuagint, reads, “… but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat; but in the
day on which ye eat of it ye shall die the death”. From the verse
part, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he shall not eat”, he
deduces, “Therefore this tree is not in the Paradise. For God (!!, note that
the Hebrew original speaks of Yahweh of the gods, not of God (in the singular),
my insertion) encourages them to eat of every tree that is in the Paradise.
But when he forbids them (??. my insertion) to eat of this tree,
it is plain that it is not in the Paradise; and this is in accordance with
natural philosophy.” But it’s the whole verse part that bothers him,
specifically because, in contraction to the first part of the verse, it speaks
of ‘Ye’ (in the plural) rather than of ‘Thou’ (in the singular). Philo
rationalises, “Again, this, also, may be made the subject of a question. When
God recommends men (?, my insertion) to eat of every tree in the
Paradise, he is addressing his exhortation to one individual: but when he
forbids him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he is speaking
to him as to many. For in the one case he says, “Thou mayest freely eat of
all;” but in the second instance, “Ye shall not eat;” and “In the day in which
ye shall eat,” not “thou shalt eat;” and “Ye shall die,” not “Thou shalt die.”
Philo’s attempt at renormalization2 fails
11.1.2.1 … In
Philo’s Septuagint, the first verse part uses the singular ‘Thou’, and the
second part the plural ‘Ye’. Brenton’s 1851 translation of the Septuagint
matches Philo’s, at least in this respect.1 The current translation
of this verse of the Septuagint on the Internet translates both parts in the
singular, hence appears to have been renormalized.2 In the Hebrew
‘original’, both parts use the singular ‘Thou’. So, which version is correct?
No one knows3
11.1.2.1.1 …
There is a very significant difference between Philo’s Septuagint and that
translated by Brenton, specifically in regard to verse 35. Whereas Philo’s
version (and which matches the Hebrew version) reads, ‘…, yet your desire shall
be for your husband, …’, Brenton’s translation (supported by the Vulgate)
reads, ‘…, yet thy submission shall be to thy husband, …”. This could suggest
that there are more than one versions of the Septuagint in circulation when
Philo produces his ‘wild’ speculations on the story.1 It could also
suggest that the Septuagint version translated by Brenton is a later,
christianised version
11.1.2.1.1.1
… However, a far more important question is, ‘Which Greek translation of the
Bible does Paul read?” After all, Paul condemns desire (i.e. covetousness,
Hebrew, chamad) absolutely, to wit (Rom 7:7), “Thou shalt not covet”,
hence could not have known about the fact that the Lord God sentences the
woman/wife, “… yet your desire (i.e. covetousness) shall be to thy husband”.
Also, Paul exhorts (i.e. commands), “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is
fitting in the Lord”. In the original Hebrew version, the Lord God does not
sentence the woman/wife to submission but to have desire for thy husband”
11.1.2.1.2 …
Renormalization was invented by theologians, that is to say, long before
physicists, who credit themselves for having discovered this nifty means of
eliminating uncertainty (i.e. infinities), evolved from the primordial slime.
Renormalization happens when uncertainty (i.e. the in- or not finite) is
replaced by certainty (i.e. the finite),1 i.e. for instance, when
facts that don’t fit are altered to make them fit2
11.1.2.1.2.1
… Infinities (actually meaning, unending series), being open-ended (hence no
producing closure, hence return to rest (maximum cerebral entropy) … and
happiness), produce (or leave) uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to misery (i.e.
low cerebral entropy, i.e. unrest), specifically in mathematicians and
theologians. Renormalization happens when an infinity (represented by a 0) is
replaced by a ‘finity’ (represented by a 1), that is to say when uncertain
openness is replaced by very certain closure, that is to say, when a relative
is replaced by an absolute. Paul (as proto religious cult founder) excels at
such renormalization. He inserts apodictic statements, for instance, “Thou
shalt not desire (or covet)” and, “Wherefore by one man sin entered the word,
and so on …”, hence absolutes that produce closure, into his letters, thereby
removing (open-ended, or non-finite) relatives, thereby removing uncertainty.
However, Paul’s genius shines forth brilliantly when the apodictic statements
are examined and found to be in themselves uncertain. What Paul (and every
other cult inventor (before and) after him) does is to make the uncertain (i.e.
the in-finite or indefinite) finite (i.e. definite and certain). The net
results of this slick manoeuvre is that it leaves his reader (or follower) in a
schizoid state, i.e. trying to resolve a certain uncertainty. The attempt to
resolve (to closure) a certain uncertainty results in mental lock-down, which
in turn drives some (such as Ronald Laing) to drink and others either to sink
into down-time and ‘give’ up or to vent their frustration in mindless violence
against themselves and others
11.1.2.1.2.2
… For instance, eliminating the Hebrew term elohim, and which is a
grammatical plural (possibly meaning ‘the gods’), hence highly uncertain in a
time when monotheism is being propagated, by translating it into Greek, and
when the elohim metamorphose not only as a singular but also as the word
God (Greek, theos) describing an altogether different concept from that
of the elohim, is called theological renormalization
11.1.2.1.3
…If Philo’s version is correct, then that would suggest that the latter verse
part is a later addition to the story
11.2 … There
is no ambiguity here. Death1 happens on the same day that the fruit
of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is eaten. Death does not happen
later (i.e. after 900 years), and/or by slow degrees
11.2.1 … The
Lord God does not define what He means by ‘death’. That is a crucial omission
in the story, one that made centuries later opens the floodgates to the most
bizarre assumptions and speculations. Here the term ‘death’ is taken to mean
the termination of (physical) life (or animation, i.e. of the chay nefesh,
i.e. as ‘living body or being’, elsewhere wrongly translated as ‘soul’,
i.e. Greek, psyche) as it is commonly understood, or as the initial
hearers, not yet trained in the degree of philosophical subtlety (or cunning)
required to grasp the Greek notion of the soul, would have understood it. Later
attempts to interpret ‘death’ as a ‘spiritual’ (Greek: pneuma, meaning
breath) but not physical death, possibly because the man stops breathing (i.e.
because he has no more breath (Latin: spiritus)), are intended to
falsify the story, i.e. to bend or spin it towards the outcome desired by the
falsifier1
11.2.1.1 …
Augustine fantasizes as follows: “When, therefore, God said to that first man
whom he had placed in Paradise, referring to the forbidden fruit, “In the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” that threatening included not
only the first part of the first death, by which the soul is deprived of God;
nor only the subsequent part of the first death, by which the body is deprived
of the soul;1 nor only the whole first death itself, by which the
soul is punished in separation from God and from the body; - but it includes
whatever of death there is, even to that final death which is called second,
and to which none is subsequent.” This is outright humbug. The facts given in
the story do not support Augustine’s interpretation
11.2.1.1.1 …
Paul follows the Septuagint translation when he quotes; “And so it is written, “The
first man Adam was made a living soul; (the last Adam (was made) a quickening
spirit.)””1 In this false quote, it is clearly stated that the
man Adam (note that in the original story the adam has no name) is
(made) a living soul. It is not stated that he has a soul.
Elsewhere in his letters Paul provides the man with a soul, i.e. with a soul as
an independent entity, and an independent spirit too. It is not known from
where Paul conjures up both the soul and the spirit, and which the adam
is alleged to have (rather than be)
11.2.1.1.1.1 …
I have not been able to find where, according to Paul, it is written “… the
last Adam (was made) a quickening spirit.”
11.3 … The
result of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is clearly
stated, namely that death happens (‘in the day’).1 Moreover, death
happens automatically (or so it is claimed, albeit falsely). In short, “EATING
(from this tree) KILLS”. This is quite obviously a HEALTH WARNING, just like
the warning “SMOKING KILLS.”2
11.3.1 …
There is absolutely no suggestion in this verse (or in any other statement by
the Lord God or the storyteller) that death results from breaking the Lord
God’s command (or instruction). Death results automatically from eating of the
tree of the knowledge of good and bad. This is crucial to the story. Claims
made centuries later by Christian fiction writers (i.e. from Paul through to
Augustine, and on to Luther) that death, or at least a terrible corruption or
disease of the flesh, nay of the whole person (i.e. the nefesh, wrongly
translated into Greek as the psyche, i.e. soul), results from the adam’s
breaking of the Lord God’s command, hence from disobedience, are simply false1
11.3.1.1 … In
his utopian novel, the City of God, Augustine fudges the issue of the cause of
death: “For the first men (plural?, my insertion) would not have
suffered death had they not sinned.” And again, “Wherefore we (who?, my
insertion) must say that the first men (plural?) were indeed so
created, that if they had not sinned, they would not have experienced any kind
of death; but that, having become sinners, they were so punished with death,
that whatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punished with the same
death. For nothing else could be born of them than that which they themselves had
been.” That’s not in the story. The Lord God states that ‘death in the day’
results from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. The Lord God
does not state that the adam will die because he breaks His command
(hence for disobedience)
11.3.2 …
Whether or not the Lord God’s instruction to the man is a command or a
(protective) HEALTH WARNING is uncertain. Of and by itself the verse fragment,
“You shall not eat of it”, is undoubtedly a command. However, the command is
qualified with a death threat. Whether or not the whole statement is to be
understood as a command or as a protective HEALTH WARNING is for you to decide
11.4 … It is
not stated how or why knowledge comes into existence. It is not stated if the
knowledge referred to in this verse is primary (i.e. understood to mean direct
experience, i.e. as a real data bit), secondary (i.e. understood to mean memory
of a previous experience, registered as fact or datum) or tertiary (i.e.
understood to mean wisdom, i.e. as rationalized (i.e. compressed to a logic
outcome) grasp of relative or related data bits). Scholars now believe that the
ancient Hebrews understand ‘knowing’ as ‘experiencing’1
11.4.1 … If
the latest scholarly opinion is taken into account, then the description of the
forbidden tree ought to read: “The tree of the experience of good and
bad”
11.5 … It is
not stated how or why (the relative, qualifying tag) ‘good’1 comes
into existence. The Lord God does not explain what He means by ‘good,’ or what
purpose ‘good’ serves2
11.5.1 … No such
entity (or reality) as ‘good’ (i.e. the Good) exists, save in the fuzzy and
superficial (i.e. given to surface structure or edge/bit processing)
imagination of Greek and Indian philosophers, and the Early Church Fathers. It
is not stated in the story who nominalizes the attribute ‘good’ (i.e. ‘good’ in
relation to what?) and for what reason. Nominalizing (hence absolutizing) a
relative attribute (or adjective) is an intellectual error,1 albeit
a highly useful one. No one yet has discovered a (or the) ‘good’ apart from an
act or an object interacting relatively
11.5.1.1 … Reifying (i.e. as
in making real or attributing realness to) nominalizations is an even more
pernicious error of mental processing, i.e. by a momentarily ‘frozen’ (i.e.
quantized) observer. Individuals (i.e. momentarily quantized, hence frozen,
hence psychotic observers) who ‘experience’ reified (i.e. made real)
nominalizations (of relative attributes) are essentially crazy, i.e.
psychopathic1 (i.e. because, having reduced processing to
a single point (or focal node), they have lost perspective, hence fundamentally
solipsistic)
11.5.1.1.1 … Holding still
(hence eliminating relative processing) produces psychosis (i.e. an absolutely
still or inert mental focus, i.e. mindset). Misinterpreting (and responding to
the misinterpretation of) that which is ‘held still’ as though it were real is
a pathological response. In short, only specifically quantized observers, hence
momentary psychopaths produce a real experience of something, i.e. of a ‘held
still’ or frozen sequence of events or function, be that the taste of sweetness
or the perception of any ‘thing’ (i.e. as locked, hence made ‘hard’, therefore
real, function). In short, the affect of realness (i.e. the c2
affect, found in the e=mc2 equation) happens only when two stills
(i.e. quanta) collide (each, of course, presenting for collision @ the rate of
c)
11.5.2 … It is alleged that
eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad provides the knowledge of
‘good.’ Whether or not it provides the capacity to perform good (i.e. @100% or
better) acts is not stated.1 The Lord God remains silent on whether
or not He forms the man with the capacity to perform good acts.2
Indeed, both the storyteller and Lord God remain silent on what they mean by
good 1 (i.e. as acts or act attributes)
11.5.2.1 … If
the second part of verse 26 is accepted as authentic (and that is highly
improbable), then it appears that the first act performed by the man and the
woman, namely when they cover their nakedness, is good. In short, when given
the choice, the man and the woman choose to do ‘good’
11.5.2.2 …
The fact is that each and every act, when completed, is good in itself. In
short, goodness is a function of completion, to wit, good means complete (or
closed), bad means incomplete (or open)
11.6 … The
Lord God does not state what He means by ‘bad,’ or what purpose ‘bad’ serves1,2
11.6.1 … It
is not stated who nominalizes the attribute ‘bad’ (i.e. bad in relation to
what?) and for what reason
11.6.2 …
Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad provides the knowledge of
‘bad’. Whether or not it provides the capacity to perform bad acts is not
stated. The Lord God remains silent on whether or not He has formed the adam
with the capacity to perform bad acts. Indeed, both the storyteller and Lord
God remain silent on what they mean by bad1 (i.e. by bad acts or act
attributes)
11.6.2.1 …
The moral of the story that eventually emerges appears to suggest that ‘good’
means ‘being clothed’, thereby appearing, hence becoming ‘as one of us’, and
that ‘bad’ means ‘being naked’, hence not yet ‘become as one of us’1
11.6.2.1.1 …
Whether or not the capacity to experience shame is peculiar to Yahweh
and to the rest of the elohim (i.e. the ‘strong’, elsewhere translated
as ‘the gods’, perhaps the adults) is not explicitly stated
11.7 … The
Lord God gives His immediate (hence secondary) reason why the man shall not eat
from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad in verse 41,1 namely
that ‘knowing good and bad’ endows the eater with the status of the elohim
(or ‘the gods’), i.e. he ‘has become as one of us’. Apparently the Lord God has
no problem with the man becoming ‘as one of us’. He’s got a problem with the
man’s ‘living forever’ should he eat of the tree of life. It’s to stop the man
eating of the tree of life, and not for having eaten of the forbidden tree,
that the Lord God “sends the man (but not the woman) forth from the garden”.
The Lord God does not state why He does not want the man to live forever, that
is to say, ‘as one of us’
11.7.1 … In
verse 24, the serpent tells the woman what ‘God knows,’1 (in fact
what ‘the gods know’) namely that eating of the tree forbidden to the man will
turn the eater into ‘one of us’, i.e. an elohim (or ‘the strong’), i.e.
into one of the gods. Whether or not the serpent has eaten from the tree of the
knowledge of good and bad and has had direct experience of what ‘God knows’
(i.e. what ‘the gods know’) is not stated. The Lord God does not command the
serpent not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad
11.7.1.1 …
The storyteller does not state that the Lord God commands the woman not to eat
of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad and that she will die (i.e. ‘dost
die) on the day that she eats of it
11.8 … It is
not stated who invents (or creates or forms) death and what purpose death
serves. The Lord God merely acknowledges that death happens (or may happen).1
Unfortunately, the Lord God does not explain what he means by death. Whether or
not death happens only as the consequence of eating from the tree of the
knowledge of good and bad or there are other causes of death, such as not
eating of the tree of life or, indeed, natural or unnatural (resulting from
predation) mortality, is not stated
11.8.1 …
Since the fruits of the trees are eaten, the fruits die, at least a physical
death. Hence ‘death’ happens prior to the man’s alleged act of transgression.
Paul’s claim that death, and which he does not reference, hence limit, happens
as the result of the adam’s (alleged) sin is refuted, unless he means
that his reference to death applies only to humans, and which he does not
state. Whether or not the fruits die because of a sin committed by the first
fruit ever grown is not known
11.9 … The
Lord God states that death ‘in the day’1 happens as the consequence
of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Augustine claims2
that death results from disobedience. Augustine’s claim is not supported by the
facts given in the story. Augustine lied. Ditto Paul3 and Luther
11.9.1 … The
Lord God’s statement (i.e. as prediction) is absolutely clear. Death happens,
apparently automatically, on the very same day that the man eats of the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, not at a later date, not by slow degrees over months
or years
11.9.2 …
Augustine, however, states: “He (i.e. the Lord God) had so made them,
that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality
and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they
disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence.” Nice try!
11.9.3 … Paul
asserts (albeit without providing evidence): “The wages of sin is death.”1,2
The Lord God makes not such statement. He does not link death to sin, nor to
disobedience. Jesus does not state that death results from (the adam’s)
sin (i.e. of disobedience), though He does appear to establish a connection
between sins (i.e. resulting from breaking Mosaic Law) and disease. Paul’s
statement is a ‘random’ shot in the dark (from the hip) and simply false
11.9.3.1 …
Paul invents his absolute notion of ‘sin’ (i.e. as independent entity) at the
end of his career, i.e. in his Letter to the Romans. Prior to that he refers to
specific vices (i.e. sins) namely, unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, badness,
jealousy, murder, rivalry, deceit, spite, and individuals with sinful
proclivites, i.e. rumour-mongers, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant,
braggarts, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless,
loveless merciless. Now he compresses all of the aforementioned, very precisely
referenced ‘sins’ into the un-referenced notion of sin per se, then claims that
sin per se originates with ‘one man’, i.e. with the adam. It is not
known what prompts Paul to make this wondrous leap of imagination. What is
certain, however, is that Paul (just like Augustine and, later on, Luther) is
not prepared (or capable) of taking responsibility for his own vices (of
failings). He gets himself and the members of his new religious cult off the
hook by simply shifting the blame to the (the scapegoat, read: fall guy) adam
(i.e. for his transgression and theirs)
11.9.3.2 …
Paul does not explain precisely how sin originates, or how it causes death
11.10 … The
Lord God remains silent on any consequences that may result from the breaking
of His command.1 The Lord God does not refer at all to either
obedience or disobedience. Therefore, Augustine’s claims that the Lord God
“laid upon Adam the one simple command of obedience” and that the man’s
“immortality is conditional upon obedience” are fiction, indeed crass,
malicious disinformation When Augustine passes off his fiction as fact he is
lying, and deceiving. When Luther accepts Augustine’s fiction and passes it on
as fact he too is lying and deceiving
11.10.1 … The
Lord God does not qualify the breaking of His command in any way. Not only does
the problem of command breaking (i.e. of disobedience1) not arise,
command breaking per se is not qualified as lapse, flaw, sin, wickedness and so
on. Moreover, the Lord God does not state that breaking his command (or its
affect, whatever it is) will operate as a corruption of the flesh (or ‘soul’ or
body, i.e. the nefesh) onto death (see Paul) to be transmitted to all
humans in the man’s semen during intercourse (see Augustine)
11.10.1.1 …
In other words, the problem of disobedience is simply not addressed anywhere in
the story. Nowhere in the story does the Lord God or the storyteller speak of
punishment for disobedience. That the religious fanatic, Paul, would, 1000 plus
years later, claim that the Lord God punishes the man for disobedience and that
disobedience amounts to grievous (i.e. mortal) sin, intentionally falsifies the
story.1 By claiming that sin (i.e. the failure to hit the mark, and
which now becomes endemic failure or flaw) originates through disobedience,
Paul is lying. The story is absolutely clear on the cause of the man’s death.
The man dies ‘in the day’ if and when he eats of the tree of knowledge of good
and bad. He does not die because of disobedience; at least, that’s not what the
story says
11.10.1.1.1 …
Paul’s view, namely that the pair, having eaten of the forbidden tree and not
died, are punished, is a personal opinion falsely derived from biased reading
of some cherry picked bits of the whole evidence. As will emerge later when the
relevant verses are subjected to forensic examination, the evidence suggesting
that the Lord God issues His sentences as punishment is highly uncertain
11.11 … It is
not stated that the Lord God genuinely believes, albeit erroneously, that
eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad will kill the man he has
formed of the ground; or if he adds the death threat to induce sufficient fear
(i.e. as deterrent) in the man1 so that he does not eat of the tree2
11.11.1 …
Augustine suggests that: “Death was originally proposed as an object of dread,
that sin might not be committed”. It eventually turns out that the Lord God’s
threat is empty since the chay nefesh (i.e. the whole living body
or being), having eaten from the tree (or so it seems), does not die (that is
to say, ‘on the same day’, nor, indeed, for another 900 years)
11.11.2 … Let
me try an analogy. Supposing a father says to (i.e. commands, charges, instructs
or warns) his young (hence immature, hence inexperienced) son: “Don’t climb
this tree. If you do you’ll fall down and break a leg.” By using the threat of
injury in addition to his command, the father is using fear as means of
deterring his son from climbing the tree, thereby protecting his son’s health.
Whether or not the father’s protective command operates as an
obedience/disobedience issue or as a health warning is not easy to decide.1
Whether or not the father later punishes his son (i.e. who climbs the tree,
falls down, but does not break a leg, note the adam does not die
after he has eaten from the tree) for disobeying his command (and when the
father has an obedience or power problem), or in order to forcefully alter his
son’s behaviour so that he won’t climb the tree again (and so stay alive or
stay off crutches), depends on the father2
11.11.2.1 …
The inexperienced son, sensing his drive to free expression curtailed, will
claim that his old man is on an obedience trip. The old man will claim that he
is issuing the order in the best interest of his son’s and his own interest
11.11.2.2 …
Later in the story, the Lord God does not disclose the actual reason why He
sentences the man (albeit without passing judgement on the man’s alleged
transgression), nor, indeed, if He thinks (or intends) His sentence as
punishment
11.12 … The
Lord God does not threaten the man with ‘sending forth’ from the garden and a
subsequent life of toil and sweat should he eat of the tree (and break his
command or health warning). Nor does He threaten the man with withdrawal of
sanctifying grace, in much the same way that a father does not threaten his son
with withdrawal of love just because he has been bold
11.13 … This
is a crucial omission. It is unclear if death means final termination (and
return to dust) of the nefesh (i.e. of the whole body, being or soul1,
Greek: psyche), or merely termination of the man’s status as an ignorant
(because naked) labourer ‘formed of the dust of the ground’ and rebirth into
the new (and higher, hence ‘risen’) status2 of ‘as one of us’ (verse
41), therefore no longer ignorant because clothed, albeit ‘formed of the dust
of the ground’
11.13.1 …
Having (allegedly) eaten from the forbidden tree, (see verse 26) the man does
not die.1,2 Indeed, as the storyteller later discloses, the adam
does not even acquire the knowledge of good and bad but merely sight of his
nakedness3
11.13.1.1 …
There are three possibilities why the man does not die. Firstly, death does not
mean physical death, i.e. the death of the nefesh, i.e. understood as
body, being or soul, but merely the termination of the status (or condition) of
not-as-one-of-us groundling (or creature of dust)-as-cultivator prior to
rebirth ‘as one of us, knowing good and bad’, i.e. hence having the status of
the gods (i.e. the elohim). Secondly, God lies; or He simply does not
know what affect the knowledge of good and bad will have on the creature whom
He has formed of the dust of the ground rather than on a god, and who has (or
has not) been formed (or made) of the dust of the ground. Thirdly, the fruit
which the woman gives the man (in silence), and which he eats (in silence),
does not come from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad but from the tree
in the midst of the garden, namely from the tree of life
11.13.1.2
…Since the nefesh, i.e. the body, being, creature or soul, i.e. as whole
person, does not die, later Christian interpreters, masquerading as expert
witnesses, claim that the ‘spirit’ (i.e. Greek: pneuma, Latin: spiritus)
of the nefesh dies. It is not known precisely where the Early Church
Fathers, beginning with Paul and the Gospel writers, ‘find’ the ‘spirit’ (i.e.
as independent entity). Although it is stated that the Lord God breathes the
breath of life onto the nostrils of the adam, thereby breath-starting
him as a chay nefesh, i.e. as a living body, it is not stated
that the Lord God transfers a ‘spirit’ (i.e. an independent entity) to the man
and which leaves the man at death
11.13.1.3 …
Towards the middle of the story it becomes obvious (i.e. judging by the
frequent use of the term naked, i.e. it is used 4 times, and terms referring to
being clothed are used 3 times) that in the opinion of the storyteller and of
the Lord God knowing (i.e. experiencing) nakedness (perhaps shame) equates to
knowing (i.e. experiencing) ‘bad’ and being clothed (perhaps being without
shame) equates to knowing (i.e. experiencing) ‘good’. In short, this story is
not about disobedience, sin and death as Paul falsely claims (in his Letter to
the Romans), but about the shift in status that results when an individual
(i.e. as infant or primitive human) stops running around in the nude and starts
wearing clothes, hence appearing and/or behaving as an adult (or a civilized
person)
11.13.2 …
Indeed, in verse 41 the Lord clearly states that having eaten of the tree of
the knowledge of good and bad the man “has become as one of us, knowing good
and bad” (i.e. because he is now wearing clothes), therefore an elohim
(later wrongly translated as god (in the singular)), albeit mortal. From which
it might (!!) be assumed (perhaps wrongly) that ‘death in the day’ means death
as a sleeping (i.e. un-knowing, innocent, naïve or ignorant, because naked) nefesh
and rebirth (or awakening1) to the beginning of a new life as an
open-eyed (hence ‘knowing’ or being aware of the fact that nakedness in public
is objectionable, because offensive) nefesh, hence to the life of an elohim,
i.e. god. But that is speculation
11.13.2.1 …
The link to the Buddha’s awakening and its inherent meaning is obvious. The
Siddartha claims that He has ‘woken up’ (as it were from sleep, i.e. from
innocence) and that He now sees things ‘as they are.’ It is of passing interest
to note that immediately after His awakening a great serpent (i.e. Pali: naga)
appears in order to protect him. Legend has it that the Buddha wakes up under
the Pipal Tree (Latin: ficus religiosa), known all over South East Asia
as the Tree of Knowledge, i.e. the Bodhi Tree
11.14 … For
the man,1 i.e. the adam to have understood the Lord God’s
death threat he would have had to have grasped the concept (or reality) of
death. The man could only have acquired the knowledge of death if he had either
witnessed death or if the Lord God had explained death to him.2 The
story is silent on whether or not death exists (i.e. if mortality, or mortal
creatures, have been formed along with the man), or whether or not the Lord God
explains death to the man. In other words, lacking any knowledge of death, both
the command and the threat of death would have been meaningless to the man3
11.14.1 …
When speculating on the death bringing sinfulness of the man, both Paul and
Augustine refer at times to generic man (i.e. mankind) and at other times to a
particular man (namely to the groundling, i.e. the adam, wrongly
translated as (and interpreted to mean) the ‘first man’1). Such
mixing of references is a cunning rhetorical manoeuvre intended to create
uncertainty in the reader. Creating uncertainty, and which prevents problem
closure, is one of the key operating modes of the fanatic cult leader. He
induces uncertainty in his cult followers in order to sap their
self-confidence, thereby reducing their resistance to manipulation and control
11.14.1.1 …
Augustine knows, or suggests that he knows precisely why the Lord God
intentionally forms the man first (hence as ‘first man’), then makes the woman
from him: “In the first man, therefore, there existed the whole human nature,
which was to be transmitted by the woman to posterity, when that conjugal union
received the divine sentence of its own condemnation; and what man was made,
not when created, but when he sinned and was punished, this he propagated, so
far as the origin of sin and death are concerned.” This (evolution, i.e. as
transmission of acquired characteristics) theory went out with Lamarck. It is
no longer believed by all theologians that criminals produce criminal
offspring
11.14.2 …
That knowledge, specifically the knowledge provided by the tree of the
knowledge of good and bad, can be transferred verbally is implied by the Lord
God’s question to the man in verse 30, namely “Who told you that you were
naked?” The fact that the knowledge of the affect which eating of the tree of
the knowledge of the good and bad brings can be acquired (or learnt) by listening
massively increases the ambiguity of the story
11.14.3 …
Augustine’s renormalization attempt, namely that the man has “an intellect
which far exceeded that of the most brilliant genius among his descendents” is
pure (religious) fiction (i.e. Rel-fi), i.e. outright disinformation. The story
is absolutely silent on the adam’s intellectual capabilities
11.15 … Death
(in the day) results automatically from eating of the forbidden tree. That is
what the Lord God says. In other words, eating (the fruit) of the tree of the
knowledge of good and bad is injurious to the man.1 The Lord God’s
command (or charge or instruction) is actually a health warning
11.15.1 … As
it later transpires (in verse 41), the Lord God’s response to His own understanding
that the man has eaten of the tree, even though the latter does not die as
predicted, indicates that the man’s eating of the tree is deemed by the Lord
God to be injurious to Himself (and the rest) ‘of us’,1 or, perhaps,
to the man and his offspring
11.15.1.1 …
Why the groundling, having grasped ‘good and bad’, should have become a problem
for the Lord God, and which He appears to resolve by sending the man forth from
the garden,1 is not stated
11.15.1.1.1 …
Unfortunately, the Lord God does not give His reason why He sends the man forth
from the garden, save that He does not want him to live forever. But He does
not state why he does not want the man, now ‘become as one of us’, to live
forever. Hence the true reason for the sending forth remains a mystery. The
probable reason (and this is serious speculation) for the sending forth is that
the man, having become ‘as one of us, knowing good and bad’, is now ready to go
forth and do the job for which he is formed, namely to serve the ground. The fact
that the Lord God does not express anger or resentment because of what the man
has done suggests that the parting is amicable, possibly joyous, that is to
say, because the man has acceded to godlike status and is now ready to do the
job for which he is formed (my opinion)
11.16 … The automatic effect
of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is death. The Lord God
does not state that eating from the forbidden tree will make the man good or
bad. Nor does He state that there will be a downward (i.e. as in ‘fall’) status
change,1 as both Paul and Augustine falsely claim2,3
11.16.1 … In
fact that status change is upwards (i.e. as in ‘rise’), to wit: “Behold, the
man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad” (verse 41)
11.16.2 …
Paul claims, albeit without providing any evidence in support of his claim:
“Therefore (?, my insertion) as by the offence of one [judgment came]
upon all men to condemnation.” It is not stated in the story that the man
offended the Lord God. Nor is it stated in the story (i.e. by the Lord God)
that because of the man’s offence “judgement comes upon all men to
condemnation.” Paul is inventing facts, planting false evidence. That is
unconscionable cheating
11.16.3 …
Augustine improvises, ‘” … but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and
disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live
as the beasts do, the slave of appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after
death.” That’s not in the story. Augustine does not explain how becoming “subject
to death” equates with “live as the beasts do, the slave of appetite and doomed
to eternal punishment after death”
11.17 …
Nowhere in the story does the Lord God (or the storyteller) speak of
punishment.1 Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad
automatically brings ‘death in the day,’ in other words, extinction (if,
indeed, death means death and not merely a change of status), making
(extra) punishment superfluous.2 The Lord God does not state that
death happens as punishment by Him
11.17.1 …
Later religious fiction writers, specifically Paul, and Augustine and Luther
who accept Paul’s mindset as premise, assume that the Lord God punishes the man
for disobedience. The evidence provided in the story does not support that
assumption. For, the Lord God does not state that He punishes the man for
disobedience. Indeed, the Lord God does not give his true reason either for
sentencing the man and the woman or for sending the man forth from the garden
11.17.1.1 …
Augustine also claims that the Lord God punishes the man by withdrawing His
(sanctifying) grace. That’s not in the story. After the Council of Carthage, in
417 A.D., Augustine’s unfounded claim becomes law which, when activated,
results in the wrecking of countless human lives worldwide
11.17.2 … It
is not stated in the story that ‘death in the day’ is an act of punishment by
the Lord God. ‘Death in the day’ appears to happen automatically
11.18 … The
Lord God does not threaten punishment for disobedience (or for disregarding his
health warning). This is a crucial omission in the story, and which a later
redactor could easily have eliminated by inserting the word ‘disobedience’ into
the story. Why this does not happen is a mystery. Since the Lord God neither
threatens the man with punishment for disobedience, nor, indeed, later on
states that he is punishing the man for disobedience, the entire and vast body
of speculation that is invented centuries later in relation to assumed
disobedience and to punishment for disobedience is bogus. When Paul states that
disobedience causes the man’s sin (not mentioned in the story), he is writing
fiction, i.e. he’s lying. Likewise Augustine and Luther
11.19 … The
Lord God forbids only 1 act, namely eating from the tree of the knowledge of
good and bad, and which will kill the man that same day. In other words, only
one law (if it is a law and not a health warning) is enacted.1 The
LAW, meaning the set of cult (i.e. demanding monolotry) and interpersonal (i.e.
moral) laws, comes into existence much later, namely at the time of Moses.2,3
Whether or not eating from a tree that is forbidden, because eating of it
brings ‘death in the day’, or, indeed, breaking a command, constitutes a
religious or moral lapse is open to doubt
11.19.1 …
Luther’s interpretation of the Lord God’s command to the man is truly bizarre.
He claims: “Here (i.e. with the command, my insertion) we have the
establishment of the church before there was any government of the home
and of the state; for Eve was not yet created”.1 Luther actually
claims that the one and only command which the Lord God issues to the adam
constitutes the creation of the church. He continues, “Therefore, after
the establishment of the church the government of the home is also assigned to
Adam in Paradise. But the church was established first because God wants to
show by this sign, as it were, that man was created for another purpose than
the rest of the living beings. Because the church is established by the Word of
God, it is certain that man (suggesting generic man, rather than the adam,
my insertion) was created for an immortal and spiritual life, to which he would have been carried off or
translated without death after living in Eden and on the rest of the earth
without inconvenience as long as he wished. There would not have been in him
that detestable lust (Luther is here parroting Paul, my insertion) which
is now in men, but there would have been the innocent and pure love of sex
toward sex. Procreation would have taken place without any depravity (Wow!
my insertion), as an act of obedience. Mothers would have given birth
without pain. Infants would not have been brought up in such a wretched manner
and with such great toil.” That’s not in the
story. But it’s great Rel-fi (i.e. Religious fiction)
11.19.1.1 …
This bite of Lutheran fiction is a prime example of renormalization, i.e. of
making the highly uncertain absolutely certain
11.19.2 …
Moses (allegedly) receives the LAW (i.e. the initial starter pack of 10
commandments, plus several dozen more commandments which are rarely mentioned),
because man (i.e. either mankind or the Hebrew tribes in particular) has not
figured out the difference between good and bad, unless the knowledge of good
and bad refers to the affect of nudity and being clothed rather than to moral
discrimination.1 Had the groundling eaten from the tree of the
knowledge of good and bad, and it is not absolutely certain that he had, and
had that knowledge been transmitted in the groundling’s semen as Augustine
claims, then a LAW, such as the one Moses brought from Yahweh, would not
have been necessary
11.19.2.1 …
First the Yahweh sends the Flood to eliminate the bad guys, - it is not
stated why they are deemed bad since they are not subject to any commandments -
and who by that time apparently make up the vast majority of humans, or so the
ancient Hebrew myth makers claim. Then, since the survivors of the flood have
‘chosen’ to become bad guys (and gals) again, the Lord God tries again to clear
out the rot, this time sending Moses to the bad guys (and gals) with a Book of
Rules (i.e. the 10 commandment starter pack plus a several pages long codicil),
and which purports to guide the bad guys to do what is good rather than bad,
because they don’t seem to know the difference.1 This suggests that
when the man and the woman leave the garden they don’t have a clue about ‘good
and bad.’ One could, if one felt so inclined, infer from this that the man and
the woman do not in fact eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad but
eat from the tree of life (i.e. in the midst of the garden), and when they see
“that they are naked” and/or experience, as Augustine claims, the “first
stirrings of their members” (i.e. their reproductive organs). All of which
sinks the pernicious theory of Original Sin suggested by Paul and fully
developed and instituted by Augustine
11.19.2.1.1 …
As will become clear when the fine detail of the next verse (12.1 ff) is
examined, the Yahweh’s capacity to anticipate (or foresee, or predestine
(?)) the outcome of his actions is sorely limited, if not non existent. The
fact that Yahweh needs to interfere, with the benefit of hindsight, to
change the situation which He has created, and which He finds to be ‘not good’,
proves that His capacity of precognition is not yet fully functional. When
Augustine claims, “But because God foresaw all things, and was therefore not
ignorant that man also would fall …”, he is quite obviously inventing an
opinion that is not derived from this particular scripture
11.19.3 …
Whether or not the Lord God creates the law (or the LAW) - as Paul claims - so
that man might fail (or fall) in following it, hence sin, hence require the
Lord God’s sanctifying grace to overcome sin (and find redemption), is a mute
question. Paul’s reasoning, namely that the Lord God creates more Law so that
man (that is to say, not some men but all men, my insertion) can fail
(i.e. sin) more, so that he may receive more of the Lord God’s grace, is logic,
yet totally absurd. In the story, the Lord God commands (hence speaks a law or
instruction) to protect the man from the deadly outcome of eating from the tree
of the knowledge of good and bad, not to force him into failure (i.e. sin) so
that He might bestow (or restore) grace1
11.19.3.1 …
Paul does not state how he comes by his knowledge of how and why the Lord God
dispenses His (sanctifying) grace. Paul provides no evidence to back up his
flat (indeed ridiculous) assertion that the Lord God creates the law so that
man might fail
11.20 … It is not stated
that the Lord God takes the man to the tree of the knowledge of good and bad,
wherever it grows (and it does not grow in the midst of the garden, because
that is where the Lord God grows the tree of life), and points it (and its
fruit) out to him so that he will recognise it later on so as to make sure he
avoids eating from it
11.21 … It
seems (and this is speculation !!) that the command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is not
given to the man at (or in) the midst of the garden, i.e. where, according to
the storyteller, the tree of life grows. Consequently, the man does not see it
directly and, since the Lord God does not describe the tree, save with abstract
concepts, the man has no means of recognising it. It is interesting to note
that the conversation between the serpent and the woman also does not take
place at (or in) the midst of the garden, and that the serpent does not
describe the tree of the knowledge of good and bad to the woman
11.22 … The
man is free to eat from the tree of life grown in the midst1 (or
middle or amongst the trees) of the garden.2 It is not stated that
he actually eats from that tree. When interrogated, the adam does not
confess to having eaten of that particular tree. Nor does he confess to having
eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. He merely states that he
ate the fruit which the woman gave him, apparently in silence
11.22.1 … It
is not stated that the man knows where the midst of the garden is. It is not
stated how big the garden is, i.e. 1 acre or 100.000 acres
11.22.2 … In
verse 41, the Lord God will change His mind1 with regard to the
man’s freedom to eat of the tree of life. He will then prevent the man eating
from the tree of life by sending him forth (in verse 42) from the garden and
denying him re-entry (insofar as verse 43 is authentic) by placing a Cherubim
with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life. However, the way to
the tree of the knowledge of good and bad remains unguarded
11.22.2.1 …
Initially (i.e. with casual reading) it appears that eating the forbidden fruit
and the various ‘sentences’ (wrongly interpreted as judgements and/or
punishments) which the Lord God passes on the serpent, the woman and the man
decide the meaning and outcome of story. However, on closer examination of the
fine detail of the story, it becomes perfectly clear that it is not the actual
affect of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad1 (i.e.
the discovery of his nakedness and his response of fear) but the derived consequence
(i.e. of the problem of eternal life) of the derived consequence (i.e. of (the
‘good’ act of wearing clothes, hence) of the man having ‘become as one of us’
(hence as the gods, or as an el or an eloah or an elahh)
that forces the Lord God (for reasons known only to Himself, but not to Paul,
Augustine, Luther, me and you) to stop the man’s access to the tree of life so
that he shall not ‘live forever’2
11.22.2.1.1 …
Let my try again! The first affect of eating of the tree of the knowledge of
good and bad, if they did eat of that tree, and which is not certain, is that
‘they knew (?) that they were naked.’ The second affect is that they cover
their nakedness (because, as the man states, he is afraid), thereby apparently
producing the first ‘good’ acts, i.e. covering their nakedness and ‘making’
aprons. The third effect (or consequence) is that the Lord God declares that
“the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad”, i.e. that he has
become a god, or god-like, albeit with his new status limited to the knowledge
of good and bad. The fourth effect (or consequence) is that the Lord God sends
him forth because of the fifth consequence, namely that He does not want him to
live forever, and for which decision (i.e. judgement) the Lord God does not give
His reason
11.22.2.1.2
…It appears that the Lord God could accept that his cultivator-made-of-dust
could live forever, but not the cultivator-made-of-dust-become-god (or
god-like). The Lord God does not disclose why He does not want the
groundling-become-as-one-of-us, i.e. a god (of dust), to live forever
11.23 …
Augustine will later claim that the effect (i.e. as consequence) of eating of
the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, namely sin1 (not
mentioned in the story), is transmitted in the semen of the male, hence that
all children born of male semen will be contaminated with corruption (i.e. with
the adam’s guilt), hence justly damned.2 The Lord God makes
no such claim; nor, indeed, does Jesus, the Lord God’s Son
11.23.1 … Augustine
theorises, no doubt on the basis of the awful personal experience of his own
uncontrollable sexual impulse, that the initial response to eating of the
forbidden tree, hence of sinning, is involuntary “movement of the member,”
meaning uncontrolled sexual arousal or, indeed, loss of control over the penis.1
Whether or not the Lord God and His son, Jesus Christ, are of the same opinion
as Augustine is unknown to me. I stand to be corrected on this one
11.23.1.1 … Augustine sexes
up his fictional account of what happens after the pair eat of the forbidden
tree: “They experienced a new motion of their flesh, which had become
disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God.
For the soul, revelling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was
itself deprived of the command it had formerly maintained over the body. And
because it had wilfully deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own
inferior servant; neither could it hold the flesh subject, as it would always have
been able to do had it remained itself subject to God. Then began the flesh to
lust against the Spirit, in which strife we are born, deriving from the first
transgression a seed of death, and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated
nature, the contest or even victory of the flesh.” This bit of fiction is
brazen lying
11.23.2 … Augustine asserts
elsewhere, albeit without providing any evidence: “From
Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and
Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the Grace of God.”1 Then he
draws the conclusion: “The whole mass deserves punisment; and if due punishment
of damnation should be inflicted upon all it world, without doubt, be awarded
not unjustly.” This is truly dreadful stuff, the more so it comes from a
Christian priest who is supposed to believe that judgement is alone God’s
prerogative. The canonization of this malevolent religious psychopath, the
effect of whose teaching will result in the horrific torture and murder of
countless innocent humans, is one of the great errors of the Church
11.23.2.1
... This is the mindset from which probably the most abhorrent notion ever
created by a psychopathic religious fanatic springs, namely ‘the presumption of
(universal) guilt’, to wit, “all children are born criminals” (i.e. guilty of
the adam’s crime), so Augustine