The
Adam & Eve
Fan Club |
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
÷
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