The Adam & Eve

Fan Club

 

Genesis 2:17

 

 

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

 

÷

 

Footnotes Section 11

 

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

 

Return