The Adam & Eve

Fan Club

 

Yahweh’s 1st screw-up (i.e. sin)

 

 

 

Genesis 2:18 (Section 12) : “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’."

 

+       Then the Lord God says, “It is not good …”1

+       “… that the man should be alone;”

+       I will make him a helper fit for him.”

 

               The Lord God does not state why being ‘alone’ is ‘not good’2

               The Lord God does not explain what he means by ‘not good’3

               It is not stated how the Lord God arrives at His conclusion that being ‘alone’ is ‘not good’4

               Why the Lord God will make5 rather than form a fit helper is not stated

               The Lord God does not state what He means by ‘helper’6

               The Lord God does not state what He means by ‘fit’7

               The storyteller does no disclose how long it takes the Lord God to figure out that “It is not good that the man should be alone”8

               The Lord God does not state that he intends making a companion, play-pal or wife for the man

               The Lord God refers to himself with the personal pronoun ‘I’, and not with the majestic ‘We’9

÷

 

Footnotes

 

12.1 … The simple phrase, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good …”, throws a pall of uncertainty1 (or the glimmer of light of a new dawn2) over the whole Bible. For the Lord God (alias, Yahweh, the recently installed supreme deity of the nation of the Hebrews) admits that (if flawed Greek terminology and flaky imagination are applied in this instance) a ‘not good’ situation has emerged as the result of His action in forming the man on his own.3 He concedes that the ‘not good’4 exists (at least as a situation), moreover, before the man (is alleged to have) transgressed.5 Not only does the Lord God admit to a screw-up, His attempt to remedy the screw-up by forming creatures as fit helpers for the adam (verses 13 & 14) turns out to be a further screw-up resulting in a ‘not good’ situation,6,7

12.1.1 … The statement suggests that the new Hebrew national deity, Yahweh, - the original deity having been El (i.e. as in Isra-El) - does not or cannot anticipate the result of His action, hence does not have the power of precognition1

12.1.1.1 … Augustine’s claims, namely that the Lord God ‘foresees’ and that He ‘predestines’ are quite obviously flawed theories, hence worthy of condemnation. There is no evidence in this story that the Lord God foresees or predestines

12.1.2 … If the Lord God does not have the capacity to anticipate the results of His action, then the adam can hardly be faulted for failing to anticipate the result of his action. If the adam (Hebrew: ha adam), and who is ‘made in His image,’ is translated as (generic) ‘man’, then all of us

12.1.3 … Not a few Christian exegetes discovered that the Lord God is responsible for the original ‘not good’ situation1 therefore the fact that it is Yahweh who first ‘misses the mark’, hence sins. They did not long survive their discovery

12.1.3.1 … In Genesis 1, it is stated that God sees (more precisely stated, that the elohim see) that whatever He has (or they have) created is ‘good’, though God (and He is not yet the Hebrew national deity, Yahweh, but the collective of el’s) does not define what he means by ‘good’.1 It is from this statement that Christians, and Muslims too, derive the view that everything that God (or Allah) creates is ‘good.’ So, where does the notion (and experience) of ‘bad’ come from, since God (or Allah) is not supposed (in the view of His priests) to have created anything (system or body, i.e. nefesh) bad? The solution is obvious. God creates individual bodies (i.e. whole animate and inanimate quanta or units) as ‘good’, that is to say, as whole, therefore perfect in themselves. But He lays down no Law, at least not until the time of Moses, as to how those ‘good’ bodies (to wit, nefesh) should interact. And it’s in the relationship (hence relative situation) of bodies to each other that the ‘bad’ appears. In other words, ‘good’ bodies (or whole systems or persons) experience ‘bad’ if and when they interact in a manner detrimental to them, i.e. in a manner that impedes operating @ 100%. Since, as it emerges in this verse and the next, the Lord God cannot foresee that ‘good’ bodies get themselves into ‘bad’ situations, precisely because they are in themselves ‘good’ (indeed, in Genesis 1 He does not state that all future situations (or relationships) will be ‘good’), the Lord God actually creates the ground for the (relational) ‘bad’. In short, if ‘bad’ (hence ‘sin’ (i.e. missing the mark’, or ‘evil’) is situation dependent, in other words, there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ situations into which ‘good’ things (or bodies or systems) get themselves, that removes the (Greek, Hebrew and Hindu) notion that ‘good’ and bad’ (and sin and evil) exist as independent entities (or forces)

12.1.3.1.1 … Let me assume (hence speculate) that the notion of ‘good’ means fully (i.e. @ 100%) functional. In that case, God creates every body (i.e. as whole system or quantum) fully functional, i.e. ‘good’. Indeed, each body is not only created fully functional, it is also created to act in a fully functional, therefore ‘good’ way and for its own benefit, i.e. for its own ‘good’ (understood as 100% success). It’s when two fully functional bodies interact, each one attempting to function @ 100%, that a ‘bad’ situation, obviously unforeseen by God, and at least one of the two interacting bodies, arises. If it is observed that the whole of nature (i.e. of God’s ‘good’ creations) is a food chain, the emerging and living feeding on the decaying and dead, the former experiencing eating as ‘good’ and the latter experiencing being eaten as ‘bad’, and if it is further observed that all bodies (i.e. as living systems) develop through stages from birth to death, exhibiting different functions (to be performed @ 100%) at each stage, and to which they respond by different actions serving to produce the ‘good’, then it can be easily seen why there is so much (apparent) ‘bad’ (sin and evil, the more so once the Lord God’s Law is given) all around. It can also be observed that what is ‘bad’ for one body (Greek: soma) is ‘good’ for another, and so on and on. In short, whereas ‘bad’ emerges dependent on relationship (i.e. relativity), whereas (the varying degrees of), ‘good’ is determined by the capacity to function wholly, that is to say, @ 100%

12.1.4  … Whether or not ‘not good’ can be equated with ‘sin’ (as Augustine will later suggest) cannot be determined with certainty

12.1.5 … If the situation relative ‘not-good’ (or, perhaps, the ‘bad’ or the ‘sinful’, hence ‘sin’, i.e. as in ‘not hitting the mark’) emerges prior to the man’s alleged act of transgression, then Paul’s flat assertion, namely, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; …” becomes highly uncertain, the quite extraordinary ambiguity of his statement now becoming obvious

12.1.6 … The description ‘not good’ used here applies to a situation, hence to a relationship, rather than to the elements (or nefesh) of a situation, the latter being deemed (following Genesis 1) to be (or to have been created or formed) ‘good’, whereby the term ‘good’ is not defined (i.e. by the Lord God). In other words, although the Lord God creates (or forms) all bodies ‘good’, the result of His act of forming the man ‘alone’ is deemed by Him to be ‘not good’, the latter screw-up being immediately followed by several more screw-ups. In other words, to paraphrase Goethe’s Dr. Faust, albeit loosely, the Hebrew Yahweh of the gods is ‘the spirit that (always) ‘wills’ (indeed creates) the good and (always) creates the (i.e. engineers situations that are) ‘not good’’. In short, there are no ‘not good’ (read: bad, evil or sinful) bodies (or persons) in the world, only ‘not good’ (read: bad, evil or sinful) situations (or relationships). The notion that ‘bad’, ‘evil’ or sin’ exist as independent entities is obviously and error of imagination (if not of language). Moreover, the notion that individuals become ‘not good’ (read: ‘bad’, ‘evil’ or ‘sinful’) in themselves because of specific relational misadventures (and which seem ‘good’ to them) when they perform them, becomes, in the light of the Lord God’s above admission, uncertain

12.1.7 … The Lord God screws up again when He forms the creatures as fit helpers, only to have them rejected for being unfit. He screws up again when He fails to command both the woman and the serpent not to gossip about ‘what the gods know’. Finally he screws up again when He sends the adam forth from the garden a completely free men, i.e. free of any Law (i.e. as set of standards of behaviour). In time, the Lord God will send the Flood to remedy a situation that has turned badly sour. He fails again by not providing Noah with a Law, and which results in further disaster, specifically in Sodom. It’s only centuries later that the Lord God sees the need to create a Law.1 In short, Yahweh’s weakness (and which quite possibly turns out to His advantage) is that He cannot foresee the consequences of his acts, thereby inducing chaos - and its creative potential - to unfold

12.1.7.1 … In short, Yahweh is demonstrating the cock-up mode of the naïve Sorcerer’s Apprentice. He wants to do good (i.e. for Himself), but screws up. Then, to remedy His screw-up, He acts again, only to screw up again. In that way Yahweh stacks sin (i.e. a missed mark) upon sin (i.e. another missed mark).

12.2 … It is not clear if the Lord God means that because the adam, His ‘server of the ground’, is ‘alone’ he cannot do the job of ‘serving and guarding’ on his own (i.e. alone), or if the Lord God means that ‘loneliness’ impairs the man’s ‘serving and guarding’ capacity,1 or, indeed, if being ‘alone’ as such, hence a monad (i.e. like the Hebrew deity Yahweh Himself) is ‘not good’2

12.2.1 … It could be inferred from the following two verses (i.e. 13 & 14), and this is speculation, that the Lord God seems to think that the adam is overworked and needs creatures, wild or domesticated, as helpers1,2

12.2.1.1 …  It seems probable that verses 13 & 14, or fragments thereof, are inserted later into the story to bring it up to date. Elimination of verses 13 & 14 does not alter the gist of the narrative. The two verses appear to function as red herrings, though they do suggest that either the Lord God makes mistakes or that He lacks the capacity to anticipate the situational outcome of his creative effort

12.2.1.2 … Verses 14 & 15 indicate that the Lord God realizes, rather late in the day, that what the adam (here referred to as ‘the man’) needs to overcome his ‘aloneness’ is not a creature but a (human) counterpart), perhaps a mate, indeed a female1

12.2.1.2.1 … Mad Martin (Luther) has a problem with this verse. He writes, ‘But here there is a question: “When God says: “It is not good that the man should be alone,” of what good could He be speaking, since Adam was righteous and had no need of a woman as we have, whose flesh is leprous through sin?” Whether or not Martin still believes that a woman’s flesh is ‘leprous’ as he copulates merrily (perhaps guiltily) with is wife is not known

12.2.2 … This is, of course, THE fundamental problem (and which bedevils not only all of Vedanta metaphysics but all of metaphysics). If ‘aloneness’ (i.e. having the status of a monad (or in-active quantum), i.e. as a (or the) ‘One without a Second’) is fundamentally ‘not good’,1,2 that is to say, because it is fundamentally uncreative (i.e. not producing realness and variation, hence difference, hence true ‘otherness’), then (a single, i.e. monopolistic) God would have experienced it. He would then have tried to remedy the ‘not good’ by producing the ‘good’,3 i.e. a whole ‘other’. However, insofar as He produces 1 whole other, He merely replicates the original problem for that 1 whole other, and for the ‘two become as one flesh,’ thereby being obliged to produce another ‘whole (and wholly different) other’ … and so on4

12.2.2.1 … In short, doing ‘good’ acts (i.e. producing the ‘good’) appears to be a response to the ‘not good’. In other words, systems (or living bodies) are driven to do good, i.e. to generate new bodies, in order to get out of not good situations1

12.2.2.1.1 … With the inclusion of the statement, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; …’, the whole story takes on the quality of a true Greek tragedy. For, aloneness is ‘not good’. That drives an alone (hence monopolistic) body (or system) to create a ‘second’ (or ‘other’). However, when two (or more) bodies exist, they cause friction, thence a ‘not good’ situation, that is to say, until they are united as 1 body (or system), and when the original ‘not good’ situation reappears. In short, staying ‘as one’ (hence alone) is ‘not good’. Producing a ‘second’ as relief from the initial ‘not good’ also results (after a moment of ‘good’ in ‘not good’. So no matter what is done, the final outcome is always ‘not good’, ‘good’ happening merely as momentary relief from the ‘not good’1

12.2.2.1.1.1 … Consequently, the drive to singularity (i.e. to monopole, i.e. as in 1 God) is ‘good’ because it relieves the ‘not good’ (i.e. the friction of a divided house). And the drive to multiplicity is ‘good’ because it relieves the darkness (i.e. as non-existence, both as non-realness and as non-form) of the monopole, i.e. the @ rest state (i.e. as extremely boring situation) of the undivided house. In addition, monopoles, i.e. single Gods, as everyone knows by now, are bad for everyone since they enforce (usually by violent means) homogeneity (i.e. oneness (or aloneness) of form (or function), and which turns out to be ‘not good’. In a nutshell, the Hebrew, Christian and Muslin drive to monotheism (i.e. to a monopole God who enforces, by the must murderous means, His monopoly) was purely political

12.2.2.2 … The psalmist, George Jones, sings of this all to human problem in his lament, ‘One is a lonely number’

12.2.2.3 … Keeping the notion of aloneness as ‘not good’ (hence ‘missing the mark’, indeed, of not being able to produce a mark, let alone missing one) in mind, it is interesting to read again Paul’s statement regarding the origin of sin. For his apodictic assertion, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, …’ now takes on a completely different meaning. Unfortunately, no one knows what Paul actually means with that statement

12.2.2.4 … Let me lift the lid of this Pandora’s Box ever so slightly. Monistic systems, i.e. monopoles, simply don’t appear (i.e. happen as realities) since appearance (and realness) requires contact, indeed varied (i.e. sequential) contact.1 Hence, God alone (indeed, every monopoles) remains forever in the dark, i.e. because untouched. Hence the ancient Hebrew - and recent Christian and Muslim - drive to establish a monopolistic (specifically male) deity is one of the most extraordinary philosophical (but not political) misadventures of all time. The efforts of three men, all serving the Bountiful Mother (i.e. the University), and not the jealous and murderous Father, have contributed to sinking the extremely primitive ‘one God’ notion, namely Planck (with Quantum Theory), Einstein (with his Relativity Theory), and more important than both, Alan Turing, with his invention of the cipher selecting, shuffling, ordering and self-adapting (i.e. learning) ‘Universal Machine’. The Universal Machine is a machine (i.e. a set of rules) that employs a goddess (i.e. a wholly open, hence pole’less (hence undecided) Basic Operating System) and an indefinite number of (male) gods (or mono’poles), each with a limited, therefore limiting (hence producing closure, hence decision) function. It’s the interaction between the goddess (i.e. as god ground, and which Meister Eckhart discovered) and the many (indeed n) gods that produces this wonderful, so real and varied world. I’ll leave you to figure this one out

12.2.2.1.3.1 … That’s because, “Only random events carry instruction”, that is to say, only differentials (i.e. differences) can make contact to produce a c2 moment of absolute realness sup-posing (hence making real) a form (i.e. a differentially repeating, limited sequence). In short, a (repeating) monopole, i.e. any singular quantum no matter how complex, disappears because order (i.e. repetition) is not conserved

12.3 … It is not made clear by the storyteller if ‘not good’, i.e. as a lack of ‘good,’1 should be taken to mean bad (or evil, wicked, sinful, pernicious and so on)

12.3.1 … The lack of a precise definition of the notion ‘not good’, that is to say, the fact that it is non-referential,1 makes it useless as a reference base. In other words, until ‘not good’ is defined it can be interpreted to mean just about anything

12.3.1.1 … In other words, ‘not good’ in relation to what (i.e. to the man’s capacity to complete his work load or to his state of mind, resulting from his being ‘alone’) or ‘not good’ for whom (i.e. for the man or for the Lord God)

12.4 … Since the Lord God has colleagues (or companions or pals, though it is not stated (in verse 41) if the latter are male and/or female, nor if they are His peers or His subordinates), it could be assumed that He has experienced aloneness and projects His loneliness onto ‘the server of the ground’ formed of wet mud (Augustine)

12.5 … There is a serious problem here. The adam and the creatures are ‘formed1 of the ground.’ But the woman, the serpent and the aprons and the garments of skins are ‘made.’2 This suggests that the formation of the man and the creatures3 belongs to an earlier (more primitive) layer of the story and that the ‘making’ of the woman, the serpent, the aprons and the garments of skins belong to a later (and more sophisticated) layer

12.5.1 … The English term ‘(to) form’ is the translation of the Hebrew term yatsar, meaning: form, fashion, frame. Yatsar is first used in Genesis 2 (then dropped until it appears again in Samuel). Hence it could be assumed that the verses or verse fragments using the term ‘form’ belong to the original ‘passage’ story

12.5.2 … The term ‘make’,1 derived from the Hebrew term asah, meaning: do, fashion, accomplish, make, produce, is used throughout Genesis 1, right up to the beginning of the Adam and Eve story. It could be assumed that the verses or verse fragments which use the term ‘make’ are inserted later by the inventor of Genesis 1, i.e. by a priest of the (polytheistic) elohim (hence the P) tradition of the northern province of Isra-el, whereas the addition of the appellation Yahweh is written into the story centuries after the northern redaction, i.e. by a Yahwist priest

12.5.2.1 … The woman is ‘made’ from the man’s rib. The aprons are ‘made’ from fig leaves. It is not known from what the serpent is ‘made’ (possibly from the woman1). The man and the creatures are formed of the ground

12.5.2.1.1 … This makes mythological sense. Let me speculate. The woman (or her functions package) is made from (a part of (hence (internally) separated from)) the man, therefore as a part of him that operates as a sort of alter ego. The serpent (i.e. or his functions package) is made (or internally separated) from the woman, therefore functioning as her alter ego. Since the adam can be understood as the Lord God’s alter ego, i.e. ‘made’ (sic) in his image or likeness, this opens up a quite fascinating psychological scenario, and which you can explore1

12.5.2.1.1.1 … Later (possibly pre Babylonian exile) generations of Hebrew priests are driven, i.e. by the facts of life, to speculate on the origin of sin and/or evil. Since they cannot accept that the Lord God forms or makes (or creates) the bad (or the ‘not good’), sin or evil (or what they consider to be sin or evil), they split the Lord God into a variety of sub-persons, then load up (i.e. blame) the last of these, i.e. the serpent (i.e. the woman’s drive to wisdom), with the invention of sin and/or evil. Thereafter the alleged failure (or wrongdoing) of woman’s sub-system (or alter ego) is taken back to her, then from her (as the man’s sub-system) to the man (as the Lord God’s counterpart (or fit helper), i.e. sub-system); and so on and on

12.5.3 … The Lord God states, “I will make him a help as counterpart for him.” However, He then proceeds (in verse 13) to form (rather than make) the creatures ‘of the ground’, just as He had formed the adam and invites the man to name them rather than pick a ‘help as counterpart’, i.e. a help fit for him (Hebrew: ezer ke.neg.do). There is a serious inconsistency here (to wit, He intends making a help as counterpart but actually forms all sorts of creatures, and which, though named (for some unknown reason), are rejected because found to be unfit, that is to say, not suitable (Hebrew: neged), suggesting that either verse 13 and 14 are a later insertion or that the entire sub-story of the making of the woman and the serpent, their interaction and the consequences of their interaction are a later insertion whose intention it is to spin the (original ‘formation and passage’) as an apparent ‘crime and punishment narrative, and which leads to a new outcome (or moral) that purports to either explain the origin of sin or evil or simply to shift blame for ‘the terrible state of the world’

12.6 …

 

 

The functions of the ‘help as counterpart’ (Hebrew: ezer ke.neg.do) are not identified. Whether or not the counter-as-help is needed solely to assist the man in serving and guarding the garden is not stated. The story is silent on any other functions the suitable helper might perform1

12.6.1 … It is not stated that the man cannot cope with the workload,1 hence requiring a ‘help’, specifically a counterpart (hence, possibly, an equal. The man’s workload is not described2

12.6.1.1 … Recall that verse 9 is probably a later insertion intended to suggest that the adam is required to work (rather the merely play and survive by eating fruit) in the garden. When the Lord God first puts the man into the garden, having done all the planting and the growing of fruit trees, it is not stated that the adam needs help to ‘serve and guard’ 1

12.6.1.1.1 … Precisely what the adam does in the garden, besides ‘serving and guarding’ and looking at trees ‘pleasant to the eyes’ and eating of them (and in the process killing the fruit, i.e. the trees’ offspring, thereby causing death), is not stated. It is not stated that he indulges in any pleasures, sensual or otherwise. Whether or not the garden occupant interacts with the others of the ‘of us’ and takes part in their pleasurable pastimes, whatever they are, is not stated. The Lord God does not then, or at any other time (during the events sequence described in the story), proscribe the enjoyment of pleasures. Nor does He condemn desire

12.6.1.2 … In his book, Against the Manichees, Augustine invents the following detail: “Although man (note the sleight of language as Augustine substitutes generic man for the individual man, the adam) was placed in paradise (?) so as to work and guard (?) it, that praiseworthy work was not toilsome. For work in paradise is quite different from the work on the earth to which he was condemned after the sin.” That’s not in the story

12.7 … Lack of exact definition of the term ‘fit’ (i.e. suitable, Hebrew: neged) eventually poses major problems of understanding.1,2 It is not stated if the Lord God means fit (i.e. as a counterpart, hence as a genuine other with whom the adam can interact) for the adam or fit (i.e. suitable) for the Lord God’s use of the adam as a servant

12.7.1 … Young’s literal translation of this verse reads: “And Jehovah God saith, ‘Not good for the man to be (alone), I do make to him an helper - as his counterpart.”1

12.7.1.1 …The term ‘fit helper’ is a later interpretation of the term ‘help-as-counterpart‘, and which is already an interpretation. A more precise rendition (courtesy of Professor Dr. Jakob Eisenberg, of UCD, Dublin) would be ‘a help(er) … against.’ Precisely what the storyteller has in mind when he uses the term ‘help(er) -as- counterpart’ is not known

12.7.2 … Later on in the story, the creatures formed (i.e. not ‘made’) outside the garden, and then offered to the man inside the garden as helpers, are found to be unfit.1 It is not explained why the creatures are found to be unfit

12.7.2.1 … Whether or not the ‘unfit’ creatures are removed (i.e. ‘sent forth’) from the garden is not stated. The serpent, of course, is not sent forth from the garden, not even when the man is ‘sent forth’1

12.7.2.1 … The storyteller does not state that the serpent is ‘sent forth’ or ‘driven out’ from the garden. Why the Lord God does not send the serpent forth from the garden is not known. Why the serpent, and who is not ‘sent forth’, leaves the garden, as does the woman, and who is also not ‘sent forth’, is not known

12.8 … In other words, a day, a month, 10 years

12.9 … There appears to be an extraordinary inconsistency here. The Hebrew term elohim is translated throughout the story as God (i.e. in the singular). However, the term elohim is a plural, therefore should be translated as ‘the gods’, or, more precisely, as ‘the strong’ or ‘the mighty’. The fact that the Lord God refers to himself as ‘I’ rather than ‘We’ indicates strongly that He is not making use of the royal prerogative and is referring to himself as an individual. Therefore the translation of elohim as god (i.e. in the singular) is probably wrong. It would appear that the deliberate mistranslation of the term elohim, meaning gods, as god in the singular (or as godhead), is a later superimposition necessitated by either an upgrade in metaphysical view or a change in political correctness,1 namely that there should be, for unity’s sake, only one national deity. There is a serious difficulty here, which, it seems, theologians are not (yet) prepared to address

12.9.1 … It does appear that this verse introduces the ‘crime and punishment’ super-plot

 

Return