The Adam & Eve Fan Club

Adam, God’s peer

Genesis 3:22 (Section 41) : “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever,…’."

+ Then Lord God said,^1,2 “Behold, …

+ … the man has become (or became, or was) as one of us

+ … knowing good and bad;

+ … and now, lest he put forth his hand and has taken also of the tree of life,

+ … and has eaten, and has lived for ever …”³

– The Lord God pronounces (a) judgement on the man, namely, “… the man has become as one of us”⁴

– The Lord God does not explain what He means when He states that “the man has become as one of us”⁵

– The Lord God does not explain the means by which the man is judged to have “become as one of us’⁶

– The Lord God does not explain what he means by ‘as one of us’⁷

– The apparent reason for the Lord God’s judgement is that the man ‘knows good and bad’⁸

– The Lord God does not morally judge the man for having ‘become as one of us’⁹

– The Lord God does not morally judge the man for ‘knowing good and bad’¹⁰

– The Lord God does not morally judge the man for acquiring the knowledge of good and bad¹¹

– The Lord God does not state that the man has ‘fallen’ because he ‘has become as one of us’¹²

– The Lord God does not link the man’s becoming ‘as one of us’ to disobedience, sinfulness, wickedness, pride, wilfulness and so on¹³

– It is not stated how the man’s acts, i.e. either the two acts for which the Lord God appears to sentence the man or the wearing of his own clothes or the Lord God’s, result in his achieving the status of ‘as one of us’¹⁴

– The Lord God does not address his judgement on the man to the man¹⁵

– The Lord God addresses His judgement on the man to His peers, i.e. to the ‘us’¹⁶

– It is not stated that the man is informed of the Lord God’s judgement on him, namely that ‘he has become as one of us’¹⁷

– It is not stated to whom the Lord God refers when He speaks of ‘us’¹⁸

– The relationship between the Lord God and the others of the ‘us’ is not described¹⁹

– It is not stated precisely what the others (i.e. of the ‘of us’) are to ‘behold’, thereby recognising the man as ‘one of us’²⁰

– Whether or not the Lord God merely links the man’s (upward) status change to his acquisition of the knowledge of good and bad or limits his (upward) status change to that knowledge is uncertain²¹

– The Lord God seems to confirm that He and the others (i.e. ‘of us’) ‘have known good and bad’²²

– The Lord God does not explain what He means by ‘knowing good and bad’²³

– The Lord God does not make clear if the ‘one’ (i.e. of the ‘one of us’) to whom He refers is a specific member of the ‘us’ group, or if He is merely indicating that the man has joined the peer group of the elohim (i.e. the ‘gods’) as an individual (i.e. one) member²⁴

– The Lord God does not qualify the man’s becoming ‘as one of us’ as good or bad²⁵

– The Lord God does not qualify the man’s ‘knowing good and bad’ as good or bad²⁶

– By stating that ‘the man has become as one of us’, the Lord God establishes a new relationship with the man²⁷

– The Lord God does not qualify the relationship of ‘as one of us’ as good or bad²⁸

– The Lord God does not state that the woman has become ‘as one of us, knowing good and bad’, therefore does not pass (a) judgement on her²⁹

– It appears to be the storyteller, and not the Lord God, who states, “and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”³⁰

– The storyteller introduces the notion that the function of the tree of life provides immortality³¹

– Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller give the reason why the man should not to ‘live forever’³²

– Whether or not the consequence of having ‘become as one of us’, namely that the man should not ‘live forever’, is intended as a punishment or is merely a change of plan, made necessary either by the sentence passed on the woman, namely, ‘I will multiply your conceptions …’ or by that passed on the man, “In the sweat of thy anger (or face, or nostrils) thou dost eat bread, etc.,.”, is not stated³³

– It is not stated that the Lord God judges that the man’s flesh (or seed) is now corrupted with sin, and that that is the reason why He does not want the man to live forever^34,35

– It is not stated that the man is informed of the fact that the Lord God does not want him to live forever³⁶

– It appears that not eating of the tree of life eventually results in death³⁷

÷

41.1 … Young’s literal translation goes, “And Jehovah God saith, “Lo, the man was as one of Us,¹ as to the knowledge of good and evil;² and now, lest he send forth³ his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age, ..”^4,5

41.1.1 … There is some uncertainty here. Young translates this sentence fragment “Lo, the man¹ was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil;…” rather than as “Lo, the man became (or becoming or has become) as one of us,…”. He also translates “… have lived out the age…” rather than “… has lived forever ….”

41.1.1.1 … Young translates the Hebrew term ha-adam not as ‘the adam’ but as ‘the man’.¹ The Hebrew term for man is iysh (possibly enowsh, meaning: a mortal (man), hence, a man in general). The precise meaning of the term adam is unknown. Therefore the translation should read, “Lo (or Behold), the adam (possibly, made male and female) was as one of us, …”

41.1.1.1.1 … The Septuagint, Vulgate and Luther (in his translation of 1534) all translate the Hebrew term, i.e. the word combination ha-adam, meaning ‘the adam’, in this verse fragment as the personal name Adam, and which is definitely wrong. Why the translators choose in this instance to use the personal (or proper) name, Adam, rather than their usual translation of the words ha-adam, namely, ‘the adam’, is not known

41.1.2 … Whether or not ‘knowing good and bad’ should be read as ‘as to the knowledge of’ or ‘because he has acquired the knowledge of’ is difficult to decide. The ambiguity is striking

41.1.3 … Young translates the Hebrew term shalach, meaning: to send, send away, let go, stretch out, possibly put out (as translated in our story) as ‘send forth.’ In the following verse, the Hebrew term shalach is used again, but this time the man is ‘sent forth’. From this it could be inferred that the man’s (initial) sending forth is not a violent act, as verse 43, and which appears to be a later insertion, seems (or is intended) to suggest

41.1.4 … The good Hebrew priest, Jonathan, good because he’s prepared to lie for his faith, enriches this Aramaic version of this verse as follows, “And the Lord God said to the angels who minister before him, “Behold, Adam was alone on the earth as I am alone in the heavens on high.¹ From him there will arise those who will know how to distinguish between good and evil. If he had kept the commandments (note the plural, my insertion) (which) I commanded him he would have lived and endured like the tree of life forever.² But now, since he has not observed what I commanded him, let us decree against him and let us banish him from the Garden of Eden, before he puts forth his hand and takes (also) of the fruit of the tree of life. For behold, if he eats of it, he will live and endure forever.”

41.1.4.1 … Since the Lord God judges, i.e. in verse 12, ‘to be alone’ as ‘not good’, a quite fascinating philosophical problem, one not lost on Philo, emerges, to wit, “Why did the Lord God create the world, and man, his labourer?”

41.1.4.2 … The Jesus of the synoptic biographies would have agreed with him. Paul would have disagreed

41.1.5 … As has been shown earlier, the Hebrew priests who translate this story into Greek indulge in deliberate mistranslation, hence deception, in order to cover up the fact that the writer of our story, indeed of all the Books of Genesis, has no concept either of god (rather than elohim, meaning ‘the powers’ ‘or ‘the mighty’) nor of the soul (rather than chay nefesh, meaning ‘living body’, i.e. ‘being’) and to bring the story up to date with the latest Greek notions of god (i.e. theos) and soul (i.e. psyche)¹

41.1.5.1 … The Hebrew priest who ‘translates’ the story into Aramaic, i.e. as the Targum Neofiti, turns the screw of deception even further by inserting a commentary (hence fiction), reflecting the current Hebrew interpretation of the story, into the original statement (considered as fact) found in the story.¹ He writes, “And the Lord God said; “Behold, the first Adam² whom I have created is alone in the world as I am alone in the heavens on high.³ Numerous nations are to arise from him, and from him shall arise one nation who will know to distinguish between good and evil. If he had observed the precept of the Law and fulfilled its commandment he would live and endure forever like the tree of life.⁴ And now, since he has not observed the precepts of the Law⁵ and has not fulfilled its commandment,⁶ behold we will banish him from the garden of Eden before he stretches out his hand and takes the fruit of the tree of life and eats and lives forever.”⁷

41.1.5.1.1 … This Hebrew priest was a crook. Inserting commentary (i.e. fiction) into a given text (representing fact) and then passing off the whole text as fact is heinous fraud. Spinning texts by inserting fraudulent data is standard practice by priests and theologians (of all religious persuasions). The evidence presented in our story suggests that it was redacted by several individuals, each one adding what he believed to be religiously correct, that is to say, useful data. By altering the original story, each redactor practiced fraud. The same fraud happened when our story was translated into Greek (and, indeed, English), and Greek (and, indeed English) terms and notions (such as ‘soul’ and ‘god’) were superimposed on the story in order to change its meaning and bring it up to date

41.1.5.1.2 …Paul also refers to the first Adam, characterising him as the man who brought death into the world through sin (i.e. the acto of disobedience). Thereafter, Paul invents the second Adam, i.e. who, by being obdient, removes sin and death, not from this world, but from what Paul imagines and pormises as the life to come

41.1.5.1.3 ... Notice how cleverly this priest spirits away the Lord God’s judgment on the adam, namely his change of status to ‘as one of us’. By eliminating the Lord God’s judgement on the man, this scoundrel of a priest completely alters the essence of the story, consequently also its outcome (or moral). Since Paul does not refer to the Lord God’s judgement on the adam, it could be inferred (with some risk) that he got his information about this story either from this mightily corrupted translation or from the same source which the Neofiti compiler used, though the fact that Paul refers to chay nefesh as living soul suggests that he was informed by the corrupt translation of the Septuagint

41.1.5.1.4 … Note the priest’s extreme deviousness when he suggests that the man would have “lived and endured forever like the tree of life”, had he kept the Law, thereby suggesting that the man had in fact been formed (or moulded) immortal, that is to say, that he would not have had to eat of the tree of life in order to live forever. That is serious cheating

41.1.5.1.5 ... Note how the Law (suggesting numerous precepts) is introduced. The adam was given a single command, not a Law, and certainly not a moral Law. The priest is lying

41.1.5.1.6 ... It is this late Hebrew interpretation of the story that persuades Paul to make disobedience the key issue of the story

41.1.5.1.7 ... Note the slyness of this Hebrew priest in the way he rearranges the verse fragments to suggest that it is the Lord God rather than the storyteller who states that the man has not kept the Law (in the original story, neither the Lord God nor the storyteller mention the Law) and that therefore he should not live forever and is being sent forth (i.e. banished), the purpose of the sending forth, namely that he should ‘serve the ground from which he was taken’, being cleverly omitted

41.2 … The Lord God speaks His one and only judgment¹ (i.e. understood as qualification rather than as sentence) on the man, to wit: “Behold (or Lo), the man has become as² one of us, knowing good and bad.” ³

41.2.1 … The only other judgement the Lord God makes in this version of the Life of Adam story is, “It is not good that the man should be alone, …”, and which judges (i.e. qualifies) the man’s situation and not them. In the 1^st version of the story, the Lord God does not judge the adam; nor does He predict some downside affects of the adam’s future

41.2.2 … It is not absolutely clear if ‘as’ is to be understood either as meaning ‘like’ or as meaning ‘equal to’

41.2.3 … The judgement delivered on the man by the Lord God is spoken by Him (i.e. to His peers, rather than to the man), hence constitutes primary evidence. What follows next, however, is not spoken by the Lord God but appears to be the storyteller’s opinion, hence must be deemed secondary evidence.¹ The results in two major uncertainties^2,3

41.2.3.1 … Originally, verses 41 and 42 would have been read together as one single ideas context, verse 43 being added later to support the crime and punishment spin of the story (See 43.1ff). Later on, the context was divided, but divided in such as manner as to give the impression that the statement, “and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived forever, …” is spoken by the Lord God when it appears to be the storyteller’s opinion about what he believes happened after the judgement. In short, the two verses should read: “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad.” And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever, (and, therefore, so) the LORD God sent him forth from the garden (of) Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.”

41.2.3.2 … The Lord God, having passed judgement on the man, does not say to him, “Therefore I am sending you forth.” Consequently, the notion that the Lord God sends the man forth (i.e. either for having ‘become as one of us’ or from transgression) is conjecture, i.e. an uncertain supposition, that is to say, because it is storyteller’s personal opinion

41.2.3.3 … The reason given by the storyteller for the man’s sending forth, namely, to prevent the man eating of the tree of life and living forever, does not fit the purpose of the sending forth, namely that the man is to (or will) “till the ground (from which he was taken)”, that (final) purpose being a restatement of the Lord God’s purpose for forming the man (a labourer and not a worshipper or companion) in the first place (verses 0 and 1). It therefore seems likely that the storyteller’s opinion about the grounds for the sending forth, namely “And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,…” is a fraudulent insertion by a later redactor intended on spinning the story towards his preferred (i.e. crime and punishment = death, so Paul) outcome^1,2

41.2.3.3.1 … The probable ending of the (passage, i.e. coming-of-age) story would have been, “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad”. And the LORD God sent him forth from the garden (of) Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.” In short, once the man had attained the status of ‘one of us’ (possibly the status of an adult), he is ready to (leave the kindergarten and) take up the task for which the Lord God had formed him

41.2.3.2.2 … There can be no doubt that the insertion of the secondary reason for the sending forth, namely “And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,…”, and which is not linked in any way to sin, wickedness, disobedience and so on, and which would have been reason enough for sending the man forth from the garden, is one of the most malicious, though useful, hoaxes of all time¹

41.2.3.2.2.1 … That’s because it resolves the problem, and which so troubled the ancient Hebrew, of who is responsible for (human) death. The notion that the Lord God could have made man (declared to be good in Genesis 1, not qualified as good or bad in our story) mortal (and for a very good reason, not given, but implied by the fact that he intends humans to reproduce, i.e. by creating them male and female, hence complete with reproduction organs), and moreover, that mortality could have been created good (i.e. that it served a necessary, hence good, purpose) appears anathema to the ancient Hebrews. By introducing the notion of death as happening as the result of not eating of the tree of life (and which does not really absolve the Lord God from having made (the) man mortal in the first place), because of ‘expulsion’ (verse 42) from the garden on account of sin, solves a major dilemma. It ‘proves’ that man (interpreted later by Paul to mean all men) is fundamentally responsible for his own death (indeed for death as such) in that it suggests (though the suggestion is contradicted by the Lord God’s own words) that the man is fundamentally responsible for the sin (i.e. evil, wickedness and so on) he committed, and which is then interpreted to mean that the Lord God never intended humans to die, hence that death is bad (i.e. that the Lord God did not invent death), that is to say, because humans (all emerging from the adam), now bad (i.e. sinful), hence not capable of doing good, create the bad, i.e. Paul’s ‘sting’. In short, the man dies (and so do all of us, so Paul) (because he was expelled from the garden) because of sin (i.e. disobedience). That assertion cannot, however, be deduced from the primary evidence provided in this verse, that is to say, from the Lord God’s judgement on the man, “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad; …”

41.3 …The precise meaning of the Hebrew heteronym owlam is not known. Strong’s concordance (05769) suggests the following possible meanings: properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Take your pick

41.4 … The Lord God’s sole judgement on the adam (hereafter translated as ‘man’),¹ and which appears to be addressed to His peers (i.e. to the ‘us’), is crucial to the story. For if the judgement that the man ‘has become as one of us, is taken as decisive (because final), then it confirms that the man has risen to peer group status with the ‘us’ (presumably the elohim, i.e. the gods, rather than the angels, and which were invented several chapters (possibly centuries) later). That, however, produces an entirely different moral to the story, one that is the exact opposite to the moral which Hebrew and Christian eisegetes interpret into the story, namely that the man ‘fell’^1,2,3,4,5

41.4.1 … The Lord God does not state that the man has achieved the status of the Lord God

41.4.2 … The Lord God confirms (at least part of) the serpent’s prediction, namely, since the man is alive, “Ye died not the death, for God knows that when you (i.e. ye) eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God (i.e. ‘as the gods’), knowing good and bad.” The serpent did not lie. The serpent did not ‘promise’ “ye will be as the Lord God”. He merely repeated what “God knows …” (i.e. what ‘the gods know’)

41.4.3 … Neither Paul nor Augustine¹ nor Luther² makes a serious attempt to grasp the overriding significance of the verse fragment, “Behold, the man has become (or was) as one of us,…”, and which appears to be the Lord God’s final (and quite astonishing, indeed truly positive) judgement on the man. Their silence on this, the Lord God’s most important statement regarding the man, indicates their total lack of integrity. These religious fiction writers are not interested in recovering and disclosing the (whole) truth (of the story). Truth is not their business. They cherry pick specific details from the story to serve as basis for their (unfounded by the data provided in the story) proposition, namely that the man fell, thereafter invent (and ‘plant’) ‘facts’ to support their proposition. That’s bad science (indeed exegesis), but highly useful cult practice

41.4.3.1 … In his work of fiction, ‘Against the Manichees’, Augustine dives to new lows of misquotation and deliberate (hence wilful, hence sinful) misrepresentation. He comments, ““See, Adam (rather than the adam, my insertion) has become as one of us with respect to the knowledge of discerning (??, my insertion) good and evil.” This ambiguous expression forms a figure of speech. For we can take ‘Adam has become as one of us’ in two ways. It can mean ‘one of us,’ namely, like God himself. In this sense we say, ‘one of the senators,’ that is, ‘as a real senator.’ In that case the expression is meant as mockery (The Lord God invents mockery! Where does Augustine get it from?, my insertion). On the other hand, because man would be a god, though by the gift of the Creator, not by nature, if he had willed to remain under his power, ‘of us’ can be taken in the sense that one says, ‘from the consuls’, or ‘on behalf of the consuls’ of one who is not now a consul. But with respect to what did he become as ‘one of us’? With respect, of course to the knowledge of discerning good and evil so that he might learn by experience when he feels the evil that God knew in his wisdom (not in the story, my insertion). Thus he would learn by his punishment that he cannot avoid the power of the Almighty that he did not wish to suffer voluntarily when he was happy.” Augustine is a very clever, devious and mendacious man. Both his intellectual brilliance and his extraordinary intellectual dishonesty are here demonstrated by the slickness with which he dodges the issue, namely that the man ‘has become as one of us’, hence has ‘risen to’ the status of the Lord God and his pals, rather than ‘fallen into sin or from grace’¹

41.4.3.1.1 … The upshot of Augustine’s reasoning leads to the conclusion that “the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad”, hence a peer of the ‘us’, because he fell into sin (or from grace). That conclusion opens up a can of jewels

41.4.3.2 … Mad Martin also loses the plot completely. He tries to wriggle out of the problem when he writes, “This (i.e. “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad”, my insertion) is sarcasm (not mockery, as Augustine claims, my insertion) and very bitter derision (Oh?, my insertion). Therefore the question is asked: Why does God deal so harshly with wretched Adam? (The storyteller does not describe the adam as wretched, my insertion). Why, after being deprived of all his glory (what glory?, my insertion) and falling into sin and death (not in the story, that’s Paul’s personal interpretation of the story, my insertion), is he further vexed by his Creator with such bitter scorn? And is the visible sign (i.e. the Lord God’s clothes, my insertion) not enough to remind him of his present misfortune and of his lost glory? (Glory? what glory? my insertion). Why must He also add the audible Word?”. Luther then fantasizes the following Prtestant cult garbage, to wit, “My answer is: Adam had the promise of mercy (What promise?, my insertion); with this he ought to have lived content. But to make him fear future sin and beware of it, this harsh reminder is given him. God sees what sort of people his descendants will be. He puts this Word into Adam's mouth for Adam to make it known to his descendants and thus to teach them that when he wanted to become like God, he became like the devil.” None of the foregoing is in the story

41.4.4 … From both the man’s and the Lord God’s points of view, the Lord God’s judgment, namely, that “the man has become as one of us, etc..,.” can only be interpreted as thoroughly positive,¹ that is to say, the man goes forth from the garden a free, albeit mortal god and the Lord God finally gets a field worker who will reproduce en masse (and serve the whole earth)

41.4.4.1 … After all, whatever the Lord God does is (generally assumed to be) good

42.4.5 … The Lord God’s judgement on the man, namely that he has ‘become as one of us’ is clear and final. However, the reason why the Lord God does not want the man to live forever is not given. (Moral) Reasons attributed a millennium and more later to the Lord God by Christian fanatics are probably false, indeed intentionally misleading and serving to deceive. No one knows why the Lord God does not want the man, now ‘as one of us’ hence a god (or at least with godlike status), to live forever¹

41.4.5.1 … Whether or not the Lord God has a problem with the man because the latter, formed solely to ‘serve (or work) the ground,’ has become upwardly mobile is not known¹

41.4.5.1.1 … A few centuries/chapters later, Yahweh (not Yahweh elohim, i.e. Yahweh of the gods, just plain and simple Yahweh) and an undisclosed number of others¹ will deliberately destroy the single (hence unifying) language of the people of Babel, who apparently live in perfect harmony (i.e. as one). Yahweh then sees to it that they are scattered abroad, each group speaking its own language, and which results in confusion (and, no doubt, in mayhem and murder). Yahweh does all that in order to stop the people of Babel, and who are, apparently, living in perfect harmony with each other, hence in happiness, from becoming upwardly mobile and threaten his patch (or so He fears).² It is interesting to note that in the Tower of Babel anecdote Yahweh is not referred to as God, possibly because He had not yet been accepted as the new and sole deity of the people of Israel (and who were still worshipping the supra-national god El)

41.4.5.1.1.1 … There is an interesting problem here. In the anecdote of the Tower of Babel, the storyteller recounts, “And the LORD said, “Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, …”. It is not immediately clear if Yahweh is talking to Himself, using the majestic plural, or if He is talking to his pals, i.e. the other el’s (i.e. the elohim)

41.4.5.1.1.2 … It appears that Paul does not use this anecdote to regale his converts, for obvious reasons

41.5 … Since the Lord God does not provide a definitive and complete explanation of ‘as one of us,’ all explanations, indeed, interpretations, invented later on of what the Lord God might have meant with his judgement on (i.e. status assessment of) the man are speculation and cannot be accepted as fact¹

41.5.1 … The sorry fact is that Christian cult apologists go out of their way to ignore this most important pronouncement of the Lord God, and which is the Lord God’s sole judgement on him. The reason for their silence is obvious. The Lord God’s judgement on the man relativizes, if not sets aside, His (merely apparent) sentences on the man (and which now appear to have been predictions). The fact that the Lord God clearly states that “the man has become as (or like) one of us, …” hence as achieved either the status of or status equivalence with ‘one of us’, hence of a (possibly particular) god, severely weakens the later Hebrew and Christian judgement that this story is a ‘crime and punishment’ narrative, rather than a coming-of-age parable¹

41.5.1.1 … The man is sent forth not because he did wrong (i.e. for disobedience), at least, the Lord God did not judge him to have done wrong (or to have sinned), but to prevent him eating of the tree of life and living forever. The Lord God does not state that the man is sent forth to endure punishment but, as the storyteller, but not the Lord God states, “…, to serve the ground from which he was taken”, in other words, to do the job for which he is formed. And the man is sent forth from the garden a free man, for the Lord God places no restrictions (i.e. Law, criminal or moral) on the man

41.6 … The precise means by which the man came to be declared by the Lord God to have ‘become as one of us’ is not given by the Lord God. Recall the facts as presented by the storyteller. The man eats the fruit which the woman gives him (in silence). The man’s eyes are opened, and he knows that he is naked. The man does not state that he has acquired the knowledge of good and bad. He makes an apron and puts it on. The man does not ‘die in the day’. He hides when he hears the sound of the Lord God. He hides because he is afraid of his nakedness. He admits to eating the fruit (which the woman had given him). He does not admit to having eaten of the forbidden tree. The Lord God does not judge him to have done wrong (i.e. sinned). The Lord God predicts a difficult future for the man. The Lord God clothes the man. It is after the man has been clothed by the Lord God that He states, “Behold the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad.” Therefore it could be inferred that the Lord God’s judgement on the man, namely that he has ‘become as one of us’, derives from the (obvious) fact that the man is now clothed (i.e. in His clothes, rather than in his apron)

41.7 … Though the precise meaning of the term ‘as’ in this context is uncertain, it does appear that the qualification (or assessment) of the man’s status as ‘as one of us’ suggests that the man has achieved peer group or peer-like status with the ‘us’, i.e. the gods. However, the phrase, ‘as one of us’ can be interpreted in several ways. It can be read to mean ‘like us’, ‘same as us’, ‘like (or same as) one particular person among us’, ‘like (or same as) just one among many of us’ (hence a peer). Since the Lord God does not explain what He means with that phrase, later attempts at interpretation buy well-intentioned Hebrew and Christian priests are speculation

41.8 … The (possibly true) reason given by the Lord God for His judgement on the man, namely that ‘he as become as one of us’, is that the man ‘knows good and bad’,¹ the obvious, because public, expression thereof being the fact that the man is now clothed, and which confirms that the man has understood the inappropriateness of public nudity.

41.8.1 … Since the storyteller does not state that the man acquired the knowledge of good and bad and the man does not admit to having acquired the knowledge of good and bad, the statement by the Lord God, namely that the man has acquired the knowledge of good and bad, appears to be a supposition on the Lord God’s part, possible suggested by the fact that the man had told him of his fear of his nakedness (and which suggested to the Lord God that the man had eaten of the forbidden tree) and/or by the fact that he was wearing an apron¹

41.8.1.1 … Consequently, if the man’s wearing of clothes, for whatever reason, is the reason why the Lord God judges him ‘to have become as one of us’, hence (apparently) a peer, then the knowledge of good and bad could be understood to mean the knowledge of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of (public) nudity. Hence, once the man had understood that running around in the nude was bad (i.e. because he felt bad, i.e. experienced fear), and, by putting on an apron (or the Lord God’s clothes) had demonstrated that he could distinguish between bad and good and, moreover, choose the bad over the good, that’s when the Lord God sees that the man ‘has become as one of us’, that is to say, an adult

41.9 … The Lord God’s judgement of the man, to wit, “ the man has become as one of us, …”, is not a moral one.¹ He judges him to have acceded or ‘risen’ to the status of ‘as one of us’. The Lord God does not qualify (hence judge) the man to have been or to be sinful, evil, wicked, wilful, now corrupted and so on and on

41.9.1 … The Lord God’s apparent sentence on the man (i.e. in verse 36, if indeed His sentence on the man is interpreted as a sentence rather than as a prediction), and which He speaks to the man (but not to His peer group), could be interpreted as an albeit tacit moral judgment, though a specific statement regarding moral failure, such as having been disobedient or having sinned, is not made by Him. From the man’s point of view, the Lord God’s merely apparent sentence (and which is wrongly described as a judgement, i.e. as a status assessment), could be interpreted as negative.¹ However, if the fact that the man is sent forth from the garden without any Law being given to him, hence an absolutely free man, is taken into account, it is not certain that the tacit judgment of the Lord God (i.e. in verse 36) should be interpreted as negative

41.9.1.1 … It is the Lord God’s apparent sentence on the man (and which does not amount to a judgement (i.e. a status assessment), the more so the Lord does not pronounce a ‘guilty’ verdict) and the dual sending forth statements which Paul and the Early Church Fathers use to invent their ‘crime and punishment’ proposition, and from which the ‘presumption of (Original and absolute Sin, hence) guilt’ theory is later developed by Augustine. It is quite astonishing that neither Paul nor the Early Church Fathers take the Lord God’s actual judgment of the man, namely, ‘he has become as one of us’, and which describes a ‘rise’ rather than a ‘fall’, into account. The Jesus of the Synoptic Biographies does not refer to the story at all and certainly does not derive his sin-punishment-redemption theory from it

41.10 … Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller states that ‘knowing good and bad’ is of and by itself good and/or bad.¹ It is not stated that having such knowledge is bad, that is to say, sinful, evil, wicked and so on. It is not stated that having such knowledge corrupts an individual’s nature and the nature of all his (or her) offspring.² It is not stated either the storyteller or the man that he (i.e. the man) had acquired the knowledge of good and bad

41.10.1 … The fact that the Lord God states, “Behold the man has become as one of us (possibly because) knowing good and bad”, does however suggest that the man’s status change to membership in the group of the ‘us’ is somehow connected to his knowing good and bad, therefore could be interpreted as good. Whether or not the change to ‘as one of us’ status or accession to membership of the ‘us’ group or actual membership of the ‘us’ group is good and/or bad is not known

41.10.1 … Augustine confabulates, “No doubt the two are generated simultaneously, both nature and nature's corruption; one of which is good, the other evil. The one comes to us from the bounty of the Creator, the other is contracted from the condemnation of our origin; the one has its cause in the goodwill of the Supreme God, the other in the depraved will (what depraved will?, my insertion) of the first man; the one exhibits God as the maker of the creature, the other exhibits God as the punisher of disobedience.” Elsewhere he claims, “Notice that it is nature, flawed by sin (that’s not in the story, my insertion), that begets all the citizens in the world community (note the foul attempt to universalise the issue, my insertion), whereas nothing but grace, which frees nature from sinfulness, can bring forth citizens of the heavenly City.” And, “The fact is that every individual springs from a condemned stock and, because of Adam, must first be cankered and carnal (Wow!, the Lord God does not state that the man is cankered and carnal, my insertion), only later to become sound and spiritual by the process of rebirth in Christ.” That’s not what the Lord God says. He says, “Behold the man as become as one of us, knowing good and bad; …”

41.11 … When speaking to His peers about the man’s status change to ‘as one of us’, the Lord God does morally condemn the man for the (still doubtful, i.e. doubtful here used in both senses) means he (is alleged to have) used to acquire the knowledge of good and bad and which resulted in his status change, the latter being demonstrated by the fact that the man is wearing the Lord God’s clothes (or, indeed, any clothes). The Lord God does not condemn the man for disobedience, pride, wilfulness and so on. Nor does He state that the man, because he has acquired the knowledge of good (and/or bad) by apparently illicit means, and which result in his being raised to the status of ‘as one of us’, is now sinful, evil, wicked, cut off from sanctifying grace, cut off from his relationship with the Lord God, as, for instance, Cardinal Razinger (now Pope Benny 16) (falsely) claims, and so on and on

41.12 … The Lord God does not state that because the man ‘has become as one of us’, (possibly because) knowing good and bad’, he has ‘fallen’, i.e. into sin or out of grace, and is to be punished in any way. The Lord God does not state that the man is being sent forth from the garden as an act of punishment.¹ The Lord God sends the man forth from the garden to prevent him eating of the tree of life and living forever in the garden as a member of the Lord God’s peer group.² The Lord God does not state why he does not want the man to live forever in the garden ‘as one of us’

41.12.1 … The storyteller does not state that the Lord God and/or the ‘us’ live in the garden. To be sure, the Lord God does take stroll in the garden, though the actual reason for his strolling about the garden can only be conjectured. Since it must be assumed that both the Lord God and the ‘us’ do not live (and work) in the garden (indeed, the Lord God is most often described as existing on a mountain), it could be assumed that the man, having achieved good-like (or equal to god) status would now be ready to leave the garden, that is to say, to do the job for which he was formed, i.e. ‘to serve the ground’. Hence the sending forth, and which appears to have happened without any show of divine wrath, would have followed quite naturally from the man’s attaining the status of ‘as one of us’ (possibly the status of an adult, i.e. because no longer running around in the nude)

41.12.2 … Claims made centuries later by Christian religious fantasy mongers, such as Paul, Augustine, Luther, Bonhoeffer and Benny 16, namely that the man is sent forth from the garden in punishment for the crime of disobedience, are not supported by the facts as presented in this sentence. The Lord God does not state that He is punishing the man. The Lord God is not angry or wrathful. The storyteller does not enlighten his listeners (or readers) as to what the Lord God thinks of the man (i.e. as a person), now that the latter has ‘risen’ to peer group status. The Lord God does not disclose His reason why He judges the man to have ‘become as one of us, …’. The Lord God does not explain why He does not want the man to live forever ‘as one of us’ (inside or outside the garden). All reasons invented later by Christian Rel-fi writers, and claimed to be the Lord God’s reasons, are spurious

41.13 … The Lord God does not state (i.e. assess, i.e. judge that) the man was disobedient. He does not state that the man sinned (Hebrew: chattah: meaning: fail (to do right)). He does not state that the man ‘fell’ (i.e. into sin, or from ‘grace’), i.e. because of disobedience (brought on by pride, so Augustine). The Lord God does not state that the man will return to the ground and to dust because of (his act of) disobedience (or its moral qualification, i.e. sin). In short, the Lord God does not link disobedience, sin and the notion of a ‘fall’ with His judgement on the man,¹ namely that he ‘has become as one of us’. The Lord God does not disclose the true reason for His judgement on the man², and which appears to be extremely benign and useful for all concerned,³

41.13.1 … The fact that the Lord God does not base his judgment on the man on the actual act (or acts) of the man, interpreted by Paul, Augustine and Luther as disobedience (i.e. wickedness, sin, evil and so on), rather than on either the fact that the man knows good and bad or that he is clothed with Lord God’s garment, suggests that Paul, Augustine and Luther deliberately misinterpreted the story to support of their 1^st Adam (bad, i.e. fall, guy) - 2^nd Adam (good, i.e. rise, guy) Christian cult ideology

41.13.2 … It is not known if the man is declared by the Lord God to have ‘risen’ to the status of ‘as one of us’ because he had acquired, in the Lord God’s opinion, ‘the knowledge of good and bad’ or because he was wearing a self-made apron, as an act of choice, hence demonstrating that he had decided to choose the good (i.e. to be clothed in public) over the bad (i.e. to go naked in public), now upgraded with the Lord God’s garment

41.13.3 … After all, the Lord God gets a (rather immoral) labourer capable of unlimited reproduction, hence capable of doing, together with his offspring, a sheer vast amount of serving of the ground, and which was the purpose for forming the man in the first place; and the man, though mortal, gets the freedom of the world (i.e. no strings (i.e. Law) attached), to do in it and with it just as he pleases. Though the extremely pragmatic solution which the Lord God engineers does not appear, initially at least, to be perfect, it is in fact perfect, though that perfection does come with some discomfort for both the Lord God and the man (and his offspring)

41.14 … The causal link between either between the eating of the fruit of the tree ‘in the midst of the garden’, possibly the forbidden tree, the opening of the eyes, the discovery of nakedness, the putting on of clothes and the fear of nakedness which the man experiences or the allegation by the Lord God, namely, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree, etc.,.” and the attainment of the status of ‘as one of us’, is not clearly established¹

41.14.1 … Since Paul claims that the man sinned in that he was disobedient and, since the Lord God states that ‘the man has become as one of us, it could be deduced that the man achieves peer group status with the ‘us’ by virtue of the fact that he had been disobedient. In other words, the man ‘rose’ (rather than ‘fell’) to peer group status because he sinned¹

41.14.1.1 … It appears that Paul, Augustine and Luther countenance either the fact that the man rises to the status of ‘as one of us’ or that he ‘rises’ because of disobedience (hence sin, in Paul’s view). So they simply suppress, in Luther’s case, spin (i.e. as sarcasm¹), the quite extraordinary, indeed revelatory content of this verse, namely the Lord God’s sole judgement on the man. It does not seem to have bothered them unduly that this verse initiates the story’s closure, finalised in the next verse, thereby determining its moral. Obviously, the fanatic cult founder, Paul, and his followers are not concerned with the true facts of the story but with establishing and strengthening the sine qua non ‘crime and punishment’ basis of their sine qua non (imminent) redemption belief. They are prepared to lie for their ‘faith’. They are good priests

41.14.1.1.1 … Commenting on the Lord God’s judgement on the man, to wit, “ Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad; …”, Luther writes, “This is sarcasm and very bitter derision. Therefore the question is asked: Why does God deal so harshly with wretched Adam? Why, after being deprived of all his glory and falling into sin and death, is lie further vexed by his Creator with such bitter scorn? And is the visible sign not enough to remind him of his present misfortune and of his lost glory? Why must He also add the audible Word?”. “My answer is: Adam had the promise of mercy; with this he ought to have lived content. But to make him fear future sin and beware of it, this harsh reminder is given him. God sees what sort of people his descendants will be. He puts this Word into Adam's mouth for Adam to make it known to his descendants and thus to teach them that when he wanted to become like God, he became like the devil.” Ne’er has more malicious religious junk been invented by psychopathic Protestant priest

41.15 … There is a major problem here. The Lord God speaks his judgement on the adam to His peers, not to the adam.¹ It is not stated that the adam is present when the Lord God informs His peers of the his status change to ‘as one of us’. Whether or not the adam is informed of his status change is not stated by the storyteller. Certainly, the adam does not confirm that he knows of his status change

14.15.1 … It is not known why the Lord God does not address His judgement on the man directly to the man. Whether or not the Lord God does not want the man to know the substance of his judgement is not known¹

41.15.1.1 … If the theory of the transmission of acquired traits is believed, and the Christian Church does believe that theory, then, obviously, every human alive today, and who is wearing clothes voluntarily, has the status of “as one of us, knowing good and bad”

41.16 … The fact that the Lord God speaks His judgment on the man, namely, that ‘he has become as one of us’, to His peers (or colleagues), rather than directly to the man, is crucial. His judgement on the man, and the lack of a sentence (or punishment), - the sending forth appears not to have been a punishment, that is to say, He sends him forth to do the job for which he was created, namely to ‘serve the ground’ - suggests that either the man’s act of acquiring the knowledge of good and bad does not have moral (or criminal, so Augustine) implications, rather than residential consequences, or that His earlier (apparent) sentences are either merely predictions about adult life beyond the garden or the fraudulent insertion of a moralizing (that is to say, of a politically motivated) Hebrew priest of a later age¹

41.16.1 … There is a high probability that the verses containing what appears to be sentencing to punishment is invention of a later age. The strange notion that the Lord God should condemn and punish his own creation, i.e. a creation made not just in his own image but also good, hence a clone, hence given naturally to replicating the functions of the operating system from which it is cloned, appears to be the invention of Hebrew priests intent on developing a failure and retribution (i.e. a ‘crime and punishment’) theory, and which serves them as means of manipulation and control, therefore as pathway to ever increasing priestly power

41.17 … It is not stated by the storyteller that the man is present when the Lord God tells His peers, ‘Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad, …’. It is not stated that the man is told (i.e. made aware) of his status change and its implications. It is not stated that the man is told of the fact that he is to be prevented from eating of the tree of life and living forever¹

41.17.1.1.1 … This uncertainty is crucial for the man’s psychological well-being. Being given a new set of clothes and released from the garden with a basic grasp of the difficulties of life beyond the garden is one thing. Being told one is released from the garden a peer of the gods (i.e. of the elohim, i.e. of the ‘mighty’ or the ‘powers’), free of any (moral) LAW (save the injunction to ‘serve the ground’), yet still obliged to sweat for a living and be cut off from ‘living forever’, creates all sorts of difficulties. Being released from the garden to sweat and toil forever in pain without, however, knowing the reason why, namely that one is a mortal peer of the gods, creates an even more serious problem for the man, indeed for all men and all women¹

41.17.1.1.1.1 … Christian religious fiction writers generally disregard or play down the Lord God’s judgement on the man,¹ but make a big deal about the consequences of the judgement, i.e. about the sending forth (or driving out). It is generally accepted by Christian writers that the man is fully aware of the judgement, hence of the reason for his sending forth, though it is not stated in the story that he is informed of the judgment or the reason for his sending forth.

41.17.1.1.1.1.1 … The fact that he has ‘risen’ to the status of an elohim (or god) is rarely mentioned. Paul, for obvious reasons,¹ chooses to ignore the Lord God’s statement, namely that ‘the man has become as one us, knowing good and bad’. Whether or not Paul ever read the (whole) story, moreover, in Hebrew, is not known

41.17.1.1.1.1.1 … The Lord God’s judgement on the man not only kills off Paul’s 1^st Adam (i.e. the bad, because fallen guy) - 2^nd Adam (i.e. the good, because risen guy) theory but also his implicit (though ambivalent) theory of Original (i.e. as derived from one man) Sin/guilt. In fact, if the Lord God’s (sole) judgement is accepted as final, then the man walks out of the garden (and into the world) as an el, eloha, elaah or elohim (meaning; mighty or powerful, possibly mountain, and wrongly translated (into Greek and Latin) as god), with (possibly because of) the knowledge of good and bad, albeit mortal. Down the hatch with Paul’s 1^st Adam - 2^nd Adam proposition, hopefully for good

41.18 … The others of the ‘us’ are not described.¹ Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller discloses who the members of the ‘us’ group are; nor is it stated when, by whom and for what purpose (i.e. by whose desire or need) they were formed. It is not stated how large the group of the ‘us’ is, nor what the functions of the members of that group are²

41.18.1 … The ancient Hebrews, like their neighbours, believed (in the sense of accepted or assumed as true) in the existence of many ‘Powers’ (i.e. mighty ones, later translated into Greek as gods). Yahweh also believed, i.e. accepted or assumed as true, the existence of many ‘powers’ (i.e. gods), and which is why He commanded the people He had chosen (or who had chosen him): “Thou hast no other Gods (i.e. ‘Powers’) before Me.” Yahweh would not have issued that command had He not believed in other gods. He clearly states (235 times in the OT) that He, Yahweh, is the (one) God of the people of Israel (i.e. of those who worshipped the supra god El), more specifically stated, the God of Abraham and Jacob. Yahweh does not claim to be the God of any other nation. In short, Yahweh demands that His people worship only Him. He demands monolatry¹ (on pain of death)

41.18.1.1 … By choosing Yahweh as their one and only deity, the Hebrews become, or believe themselves to be, monotheists

41.18.2 … By the time the Book of Job is written, that book being the most ancient of all the books of the Old Testament, or so some scholars claim, the ‘us’ had been demoted to the status of angels, i.e. of lesser powers. The Book of Job also introduces the notion of Satan (i.e. the accuser). Satan is not mentioned in our story

41.19 … The storyteller does not disclose if the members of the ‘us’ group are similar to, same as, equal to or not equal to the Lord (i.e. Yahweh) (of the gods or ‘powers’). Whether or not the Lord God (i.e. the Hebrew mountain strong (one) named Yahweh (later deliberately renamed (when speaking) as Adonai, meaning Lord¹) Elohim (i.e. the gods) functions as primus inter pares or has superior (i.e. dominant) qualities and/or functions is not stated. By not specifying either who the ‘us’ are or what functions they perform, the storyteller introduces massive ambiguity into the story. He, or a later redactor, could have cleared up the uncertainty with a single word, but chooses not to do so

41.19.1 … The attribute ‘Lord’ (Hebrew: adonai), as used in our translation in place of the proper name Yahweh, is quite obviously a later addition. The proper name Yahweh, which is received centuries later on the mountain in the desert of Horeb by Moses, hence cannot have been used when this story is first told, does not mean ‘Lord’ (Greek: kyrios). The precise meaning the description (later become name) Yahweh remains unknown, though usually assumed to mean ‘He exists’. Since the ancient Hebrews are later (i.e. round about Babylonian exile times) unwilling to speak the name Yahweh, for obvious reasons, namely that a ‘deity’ with a proper name cannot aspire to being a ‘universal God’¹ (in the Greek sense of the word), the later invented by the Greeks and not the Hebrews, they replace it (when they speak) with the term ‘adonai’ and which they interpret to mean ‘Lord’. Plainly, that’s cheating

41.19.1.1 … Jesus, the anointed, appears to have been unaware of the existence of a ‘One God of all’. His God is still the God of the circumcised. It is the genial Paul who borrows the notion of universal theos (i.e. the god) from the Greeks. Paul legitimises himself by claiming to follow through on the ancient belief of the Hebrews, all the while upgrading his belief with Greek notions, specifically abstract notions (for instance, such as sin and charity (Greek: agape)), and using Greek rhetoric and logic to win his argument

41.20 … It is not possible to determine precisely what the unspecified members of the ‘us’ group are to behold, i.e. to look at.¹ This is a serious omission, one that the storyteller or a later redactor could have eliminated with a single word. Since ‘beholding’ the abstract notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is not without some difficulty, it could be assumed that the Lord God is inviting the others ‘of us’ to observe that the man is wearing clothes (i.e. that he is no longer naked), and not just any old clothes (such as an apron made of fig leaves), but clothes made by Him. The Lord God appears to be pointing out to the ‘us’ and that the wearing of clothes, hence the rejection of public nudity, hence the realization of bad (meaning: going about naked in public, i.e. children do) and good (meaning: being clothed when in public, i.e. as adults are) qualifies the man as having ‘risen’ to the status (i.e. become ‘as one’) of the gods (Hebrew: elohim, meaning ‘strong’ or ‘mighty’ or ‘powerful’ (ones) (perhaps adults?))

41.20.1 … The term ‘Behold’, i.e. as in ‘Look here’ or ‘See here’ is not used in the original text. The Hebrew term found in the original text is hen. The term hen can mean: behold, lo, though and if. Take your pick

41.21 … The Lord God does not state that the man has acquired god- (i.e. elohim-) like capacities other than ‘knowing good and bad’, such as, for instance, the ability to sew and make clothes, hence to create The Lord God does not state that the man has become ‘as the Lord God’, therefore as equal to Himself. It now turns out that the serpent’s disclosure of hearsay to the woman, namely, “Ye shall be as the gods, for God knows …”, turns out to be correct¹

41.21.1 … In fact it does seem that the unnamed gods to whom the serpent refers appears to know more about the affect of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad than does Yahweh. After all, Yahweh predicts that the man will die ‘in the day’ should he eat of the forbidden tree. But the unnamed gods to whom the serpent refers know that he won’t die (in the day)¹

41.21.1.1 … On the face of it, the gods appear to be proven right and Yahweh wrong. However, when the woman is questioned by the serpent, she refers specifically to the tree ‘in the midst of the garden’, and which is the tree of life, claiming falsely that they (i.e. the man and the woman) are commanded not to eat of it.¹ That is an error on her part, for they are not commanded not to eat of the tree ‘in the midst of the garden’, i.e. of the tree of life. If the knowledge of the gods to which the serpent refers is the knowledge about the affect of the tree in the midst of the garden (i.e. of the tree of life), then they are right, for the man and the woman do not die. But then, Yahweh’s prediction is not tested, and He can still be right. After all, neither the man nor the woman confess to having eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad; and the storyteller states that “they knew that they were naked”, and which hardly amounts to acquiring the knowledge of good and bad, unless the knowledge of good and bad refers only to knowledge about the appropriateness of being clothed in public (i.e. understood as good) and the inappropriateness of public nudity (understood as bad). There is a quite extraordinary muddle here, which our three experts appear not to have deemed worthy of refined analysis and comment

41.21.1.1.1 … Philo of Alexandria is baffled by the fact that the prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is issued in the plural (that is to say, in the Septuagint. He writes (101), “Again, this, also, may be made the subject of a question. When God recommends men 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.” Bible experts have not yet explained why the Septuagint translators rendered the prohibition against the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad in the plural rather than in the singular

41.22 …Since the Lord God grows the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, He must have known¹ both good (possibly fully functional) and bad (possibly dysfunctional) (acts?)² and the down-side (i.e. bad) affects of bad (acts and experiences) and the up-side affects of good (acts and experiences). It could be conjectured that, having known (i.e. experienced) the downside affects of doing bad (acts) (rather than from being bad; note that the abstract term bad operates as a linguistic illusion), the Lord God had wanted to protect the man (i.e. the garden dweller of unknown age) against the affects of the knowledge (or experience) of bad (acts) and good (acts), and had therefore issued his initial command as a health warning, i.e. when he commanded (and/or charged or warned) him not to eat of the tree of knowledge (i.e. as experience) of good and bad, since, if he did so, he would ‘die in the day’ (or ‘die the death’)

41.22.1 … Note again that the ancient Hebrews interpret the term ‘knowledge’ to mean direct, hence primary experience. The Greeks later interpret ‘knowledge’ as (rational, specifically relational) ‘understanding’, and which, being derived, functions as tertiary knowledge. Paul, ever the blind (to the whole truth) cult fanatic, cleverly mixes the two knowledge categories when it suits his need to mentally misdirect and deceive his readers

41.22.2 … There is huge ambiguity here. It is not certain that the Lord God actually knows of the precise affect (namely ‘death in the day’) which eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad will have on the adam, his formation of dust (i.e. Hebrew: adamah), rather than on Him, and Who is not formed of dust, since He appears not to anticipate the lack of the affect of ‘death in the day’ on the man (and the woman). The man and the woman do not die from eating the fruit which the woman picks off the tree ‘in the midst of the garden’. Nor do the man and the woman claim to have acquired the knowledge of good and bad. The storyteller states, “then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked.” The Lord God assumes, not having been present when the man and the woman eat the fruit, that they have eaten of the forbidden tree. That’s because they have acquired some knowledge,¹ i.e. the experience of nakedness and of fear (i.e. in the man). It is not stated that the man and the woman experience shame, as both Augustine and Luther falsely claim

41.22.2.1 … The Lord God could also have assumed that the man and the woman had eaten of the forbidden tree because they are wearing aprons, therefore have invented the technical skill of sewing and have developed the creative ability to ‘make’ (i.e. clothes). This might have suggested to the Lord God that the time had come for the pair to leave the garden and bust sods elsewhere, at least temporarily (after all He still needs someone to serve the ground), since they had obviously developed (or emerged!!) the god-like ability to ‘make’, i.e. create

41.23 … Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller explains how the notions of knowing, good and bad^1,2 are to be understood. A simple explanation, either by the former or by a later redactor, would have brought clarity, indeed certainty to the outcome (as moral) of the story. However, since those key notions are not defined, the story becomes in essence an oracle and whose resolution is determined by the state of the individual attempting to understand the oracle’s meaning

41.23.1 … Though it is not stated either by the Lord God or the storyteller, it does seem likely that ‘knowing good and bad’ refers to knowing nakedness (or the fear of nakedness) as ‘bad’ and that knowing ‘good’ refers to being clothed (and which is why the pair, opting for the ‘good’ rather than the ‘bad’, clothe themselves with aprons, thereafter being clothed again by Lord God with garments which He makes specially for them).¹

41.23.2 … Recall that the abstract notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are (false) nominalizations of relative attributes. First of all, ‘good’ (as such) and ‘bad’ (as such) are (false) nominalizations (hence absolutizations) of relative, abstract (i.e. void of actual reference) attributes,¹ hence thinkable (i.e. only by incompetent or naïve thinkers) but non-experiential (therefore unknowable by the ancient Hebrews, and who though in practical rather than abstract terms) entities. Secondly, the absolute ambiguity (hence full elasticity of meaning) resulting from the non-definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ prevents any reduction to (de-)finitive (i.e. having achieved closure to logic status) understanding of the terms. In short, the false nominalizations of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (the latter abstraction later falsely personalised as the devil or Satan) operate (or are intended to operate) as rhetorical (i.e. because fundamentally empty of a clearly defined meaning) tools serving to manipulate and control.² Since a system (for instance, a human) cannot respond (and achieve response closure, hence stasis) to that which has no finalized reference (hence is ‘open’), for instance, an oracle, the system (i.e. human) goes down, i.e. into waiting or ‘down’ time, i.e. into the processing procedure that attempts to achieve closure, i.e. that attempts to produce a logic outcome, during which (internal processing procedure) it (i.e. he or she) is incapable of responding, hence is helpless, hence can be manipulated at will³

41.23.2.1 … ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ do not operate apart from individual (i.e. discretely quantized) acts or functions (or reified acts or functions, i.e. ‘things’), indeed from intentionally directed (i.e. as it were towards a mark or target) acts. The Greek and Hebrew notion of ‘missing the mark’, i.e. of sin (hence of failure to perform @100%, hence of being dysfunctional), is eventually interpreted (indeed misinterpreted) in relation to morality and translated as sin. If no act (as mark oriented action) happens, then the mark (later substituted with the notion of Law) cannot be missed. If there is no mark to hit, then it cannot be missed. Missing the mark as such, i.e. as a reality independent of both act (i.e. as quantum of action) and mark (as actual quantum of reality) is unthinkable. Religious fanatics like Paul, Augustine and Luther not only think it (i.e. sin per se), they also experience it as an independent entity or ‘force’, their experience, as a self-hypnotic delusion, resulting from the sheer intensity of their concentration on, that is to say, absorption in¹ (read: belief or faith) sin (per se). Having experienced the abstract notion of sin as whole self-pervading reality, Augustine goes to invent the hideous and malicious philosophical mess of the ‘presumption of guilt’, and which he derives from the theory of Original Sin, the latter allegedly committed or induced (i.e. as a state) by the groundling when eating the fruit which the woman gives him

41.23.2.1.1 … When concentration (elsewhere termed absorption) is perfect, i.e. when it is applied @100%, the focus of concentration (or absorption) becomes absolutely real to the observer.¹ That’s because all processing capacity is applied to the focus and none remains wherewith to relativize (i.e. soften the impact of) it. Indeed, when perfect concentration (read: Yoga, understood as the elimination of impedance resulting from capacity scattering) is achieved the observer becomes unreal, in fact, disappears from consciousness (i.e. for lack of self-processing capacity). An individual becomes a fanatic to the degree that he applies his data processing operation to a single focus, thereby becoming blind to all other foci. When all foci (including the observer) but one are excluded from processing, the focus that remains is real (true, perfect, absolutely certain, wholly (and universally) present (since the processing of data sequence lengths as time and data relationships as space are eliminated) and so on)²

41.23.2.1.1.1 … Paul presents uncertain (i.e. unverifiable) data (hence fictions) as fact. He experiences those fictions as fact due because of his intense concentration (resulting from the elimination of their relativity) on (hence faith (understood as trust) in) them. He then superimposes his state of certainty on his followers by restricting his followers’ observation range to his own, then intensifying their concentration with the powerful emotions of fear and guilt on the one hand and (God’s) love Possibly Paul’s most genial invention) and the promise of salvation on the other. As Paul’s followers’ concentration on the content of his severely restricted teaching intensifies, so their experience of that content becomes more and more real to them¹

41.23.2.1.1.1.1 … It is a proven fact that the realness (as truth) of a notional complex, indeed of an apparently physical complex, depends not on the actual content (be that content sound, i.e. true or unsound, i.e. absurd) of that complex, but on the intensity applied to it. In short, realness is a function of connectivity and not an actual part of a given datum or data complex, as most physicists still claim. The content of Jesus’ belief system was as real to his followers as that of Paul’s was to his and, later on, as that of Mohammad would be to his followers, although the actual notional content of their systems included quite extraordinary differences, indeed contradictions

41.23.2.1.1.2 … The affect (which suffuses an observer, in fact, IS the observer) of the achievement of perfect focus is described as the god experience. The ancient Indians described that experience as sat-chit-ananta, i.e. as being-consciousness-freedom, relative or absolute. Consequently, god (or the god state, i.e. the Brahman) is described as ‘the one without a second’, the state when relativity has been eliminated and the remaining datum is processed as simple being time space and form. The god state is achieved each time an individual achieves perfect concentration, and which usually last for only a instant

41.23.2.2 … The religious fanatic, Paul, uses such rhetorical devices (for instance, nominalised ‘sin’, i.e. sin as such, i.e. sin as a reality and nominalised ‘love’) in (i.e. mainly in) his Letter to the Romans. He uses those devices as means of manipulation and control, serving to establish dependence, and from which first he derives his personal power (i.e. to psychologically abuse and terrorize, and thereby manipulate in his own interest), then the cult of the Anointed, i.e. the Chrestos cult as Church, derives its absolute (i.e. big stick) power

41.23.2.3 … When humans are confronted by situations which they cannot resolve, they exhibit symptoms of either mental paralysis (i.e. as in psychosis, expressing itself in extreme fanaticism) or physical paralysis (i.e. catalepsy), or, if the unresolved situations persist, they develop the mental traits of schizophrenia¹

41.24 …The fact that the ‘one’ of the ‘us’ to whom the Lord God refers is un-specified (hence oracular) leads, centuries later, to quite extraordinary speculation, all of it religious fiction¹

41.24.1 … In some quarters, the unnamed, because un-specified ‘one’ is later named Satan, the devil, Lucifer and so on¹

41.24.1.1 … Once again, Allah’s Prophet to Arabic speakers, Mohammed, may his name be praised, provides a more detailed report on the true goings on in the garden, thereby suggesting a more sinister interpretation of the ‘one’ of ‘us’. He speaks, i.e. Allah speaks through him: (Surah: 7.11) “And certainly We¹ created you, then We fashioned you, then We said to the angels²: Make obeisance to Adam. So they did obeisance, except Iblis (i.e. later named Shaitan, i.e. Satan, my insertion); he was not of those who did obeisance. (7.12) He said: What hindered you so that you did not make obeisance to Adam. So they did obeisance except Iblis; he was not of those who did obeisance. (7.12) He said: What hindered you so that you did not make obeisance when I commanded you? He said: I am better than he: Thou hast created me of fire, while him Thou didst create of dust. (7.13) He said: Then get forth from this (state), for it does not befit you to behave proudly therein. Go forth, therefore, surely you are of the abject ones.”

41.24.1.1.1 … Note the use of the majestic, royal or abstract ‘We’, rather than the pronoun ‘I’, even though ‘Allah’ is definitely ‘One’, and therefore singular. It is not easy to understand how the Hebrew storyteller (more precisely stated, the later Hebrew redactor of this ancient story) could refer to the elohim (and which is definitely a plural) as God (actually as ‘the strong (one)’ or ‘powerful (one)’, not god) and then have the strong (one) refrain from using the royal prerogative pronoun ‘We’. Yahweh uses the personal pronoun ‘I.’ I smell the pong of deception

41.24.1.1.2 … I like the Arab Prophet’s wee bit with the angels,¹ in particular the bit about the Shaitan (whom the Hebrew storyteller fails to mention). It’s not at all surprising that Mohammed’s novel view, so wonderfully and uniquely penned in the Koran, became a worldwide bestseller, still used daily to tinge the brains of the young

41.24.1.1.2.1 … The sequence of the books of the Old Testament suggests that angels (i.e. demoted gods) are invented (i.e. by Moses, in Exodus) many hundreds of years after this story is first told, though scholarship claims¹ that they were already a significant part of the Book of Job, and which, it is claimed, is the oldest book of the OT

41.24.1.1.2.1.1 … Another scholarly claim is that the story of Adam and Eve, and which purports to be THE authentic creation story, is not a Hebrew legend at all, but that it (or at least its core storyline, a passage myth) is simply borrowed by the compiler of Exodus from elsewhere (for instance, from Sumerian folklore), adapted to suit the current needs of the tribe not only to explain not only the origin of ‘crime and punishment’¹ but also the politically correct view Yahweh, the God of Israel, as jealous, wrathful and vengeful ‘Controller’, ‘Regulator’ and/or bloodthirsty, genocidal thug given to ethnic cleansing.² No scholar yet has been able to date this story

41.24.1.1.2.1.1.1 … The origin of evil (or sin) in the world, hence the origin of human misery, suffering and pain, was a problem that had to be resolved. Moreover, the relationship between the men and the women, i.e. the pecking order, had to be resolved. It appears that the redactor who compiles the Pentateuch simply picks a popular ancient passage myth (i.e. about the transition from nakedness (signifying infancy) to being clothed (signifying puberty or adulthood)), then overwrites that myth not only with his lately invented theory of the origin of evil, i.e. of ‘crime and punishment’, spun in such a manner as to shift the blame for the world’s woes onto the scapegoat Adam, but also with his lately invented opinion as to the status of women in relation to men, and which differs significantly from the 1^st creation story. He inserts verses and verse fragments whose notional content gradually (appears to) change the meaning of the story, therefore its moral

41.24.1.1.2.1.1.2 … Yahweh’s absolutely ruthless procedure for cleansing the territory of Canaan of its rightful inhabitants, prior to handing it over to His people, is described in wonderfully uplifting detail in Deuteronomy 7:1,2 : “When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou. And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” He then (in Deuteronomy 20:13) elaborates some finer tuned ethnic cleansing procedures, “And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:”

41.25 … The fact that the Lord God does not pass either a factual or a moral judgement either on the man’s becoming ‘as one of us’ or on the state of ‘as one of us’ is fundamental to the outcome of the story.¹ Hence it cannot be determined whether or not the (state of the) man when sent forth from the garden is good or bad^2,3

41.25.1 … In the 1^st Life of Adam story, the Lord God sees that the adam, and whom He has made male and female, is good. In our story, i.e. the 2^nd Life of Adam version, the Lord God does not qualify, hence judge, his act of creation. Nor does he judge (i.e. factually or morally) the man’s (and the woman’s and the talking serpent’s) acts. He does however qualify the situation into which he has put the man as ‘not good’, thereby confirming that He has performed a ‘not good’ act

41.25.2 … The notion that the man is sent forth a sinner (i.e. fallen, i.e. bad) is supported only by the statement, ‘He drove out the man; …’, found in verse 43. However, this verse appears to be a later addition (see 43.1ff) to the story, and whose purpose it is to spin the story in such a way as to suggest a violent and angry expulsion of a ‘bad’ (i.e. sinful, wicked or evil) man

41.25.3 … Nowhere in the story does either the Lord God or the storyteller condemn (i.e. morally or factually judge) the man (or the woman) as bad (evil, wicked or sinful; or disobedient, or proud, or wilful. This is indeed very strange since the Lord God initially threatens the man with ‘death in the day’, if and when he eats of the forbidden tree. Contrary to the Lord God’s prediction, and for reasons unknown, the man does not die. Why the Lord God has a change of mind, or heart, and does not instantaneously bring about the death of his servant of the ground for perpetrating what later commentators will interpret as an absolutely heinous crime, namely, eating the fruit which the woman gives him, is not disclosed by the storyteller

41.26 … The fact that the Lord God does not pass either a factual or a moral judgement either on either ‘knowing good and bad’ or the man’s knowing good and bad’ is crucial to the outcome of the story and, indeed, to the rest of both the Old and the New Testament. However, since ‘knowing good and bad’ appears to be causally linked by the Lord God to becoming as ‘one of us’, it could be inferred that if being ‘as one of us’ is good rather than bad, ‘knowing good and bad’ contributes, or is the cause of good

41.27 … Since it is stated that Lord God forms the man to serve the ground, it could be concluded that the first relationship between the Lord God and the man is akin to that between master and servant (or labourer). By stating that the man has become ‘as one of us’, the Lord God confirms that a new relationship has begun, namely a relationship between peers, though the actual content of the relationship is not disclosed. In short, the initial relationship has ended¹ and a new one has begun.² Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller states that the man’s new relationship with the ‘us’ ends with the sending forth of the man. Quite the contrary. It does appear that becoming ‘as one of us’ status qualifies the man as ready to be sent forth (i.e. to do the job for which he was formed). In short, the man is sent forth because he has become ‘as one of us’ (i.e. because wearing clothes, because knowing good and bad) and not because he has sinned, unless, that is, sinning is the necessary step to becoming ‘as one of us’, i.e. a god (or adult)

41.27.1 … Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller comment on the initial relationship¹ between the Lord God and the man before the man’s act that leads to his ‘knowing his nakedness’, nor on their relationship after the man’s two (intentional (i.e. will-full) or unintentional (i.e. will-less) acts of which the Lord God appears to accuse and sentence, nor on their relationship after the man is clothed by the Lord God, nor on their relationship after he is described by the Lord God as having ‘become as one of us’, nor on their relationship after the storyteller states Lord God, for whatever reason, and which is not given, that He does not want the man to ‘live forever’, nor on their relationship after He sends him forth - free of any Law - from the garden in Eden into Eden and beyond

41.27.1 … The initial relationship between the Lord God and the adam, i.e. between the creator and the creature he forms and brings to life, is not described in detail. A change of relationship between the Lord God and the adam is not described. The final relationship between the Lord God and the adam, just prior to the latter’s departure from the garden is described, namely, “he has become as one of us, …”. The personal (i.e. intimate) relationship between the Lord God and the adam is not described. The storyteller does not state that either the Lord God or the man want (or desire) such a relationship. Claims made centuries later, indeed, even in the present time,¹ that the relationship between the Lord God and the adam is broken (or disrupted) on account of the man’s transgression (read: disobedience) are spurious since it is not stated that a relationship exists between the two, other than that of master and servant

41.27.1.1 … The former Cardinal Razinger, now Pope Benny 16, not only suggests (albeit without providing any evidence) that the relationship between the Lord God and the man was broken (i.e. by the man’s wilful act of disobedience, my insertion), but asserts that the relationship between the adam and his woman was broken and, moreover, that every child that is born into the world (and which is good) emerges with its capacity for relationship broken (or defective), hence ‘in’ Original Sin.¹ That’s utter nonsense. Benny (and all Christians) would be better served, because better informed, if this Alfa 1 primate would read the story, recover the authentic facts and speak the truth, rather than monger Augustine’s malevolent fantasies

41.27.1.1.1 … Let’s take another look at Ratzinger’s modernized interpretation of sin, and which he appears to derive from Augustine’s wholly unfounded suppositions rather than from the facts as presented in the original story. He writes, “But sin (i.e. unspecified, maybe sin per se?, my insertion) means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it¹ wants to make the human being a god.² Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual.” “To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good (according to Augustine, since adam, human existence is bad, i.e. sinful, my insertion), he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage (this should read, ‘does not become engaged’, my insertion) engage in them as he or she ought.” It is not stated in the story that the adam has either lost or disturbed his relationship with the Lord God. It is not stated that the relationship between the adam and his woman relationship is damaged. It is not stated that the adam’s offspring, for instance his three sons, when born, are confronted by a sin-damaged world. Ratzinger is lying

41.27.1.1.1.1 … Note Ratzinger’s extremely cunning (‘serpentine’ ?) misuse of the pronoun ‘it’ (i.e. for sin). There is no such ‘thing’ (i.e. as graspable entity, i.e. quantum) as sin (i.e. as sin as such, i.e. as sin of and by itself). Following accepted, but false wisdom, rather than direct observation and/or analysis, Ratzinger nominalizes, indeed personalizes (and, perhaps, personally reifies) the relative attribute sin-(full). That’s an unconscionable error for an academic who has (or should have) an even rudimentary understanding of linguistics. That Ratzinger (now Benny 16) believes that sin (as such) exists puts him into the Augustinian fold

41.27.1.1.1.2 … It is not stated by the man or the woman that they want to be come as God (or the gods, or the Lord God). Nevertheless, Benny speculates: “Thus human beings themselves want to be God. When they try this, everything turns topsy-turvy. The relationship of human beings to themselves is altered, as well as their relationships to others. The other is a hindrance, a rival, a threat to the person who wants to be God. The relationship with the other becomes one of mutual recrimination and struggle, as is masterfully shown in Genesis 3:8–13, which presents God’s conversation with Adam and Eve.” The storyteller does not describe a relationship of “mutual recrimination and struggle” either between the Lord God and the man, nor between the man and the woman

41.28 … The fact that the ‘as one of us’ relationship is not qualified as good or bad, factually or morally, introduces serious uncertainty into the story

41.29 … The fact that the Lord God does not confirm that the woman’s status has changed to ‘as one of us, knowing good and bad’ is striking¹, indeed, incomprehensible^2,3

41.29.1 … This omission by the Lord God (and by the storyteller), whether intentional or not, is quite extraordinary since it is the woman who first eats the fruit, thereby initiating the sequence of events that result in the ‘sending forth’ of the man, now elevated to ‘as one of us’ status.¹ A later editor could easily have filled in the omission. Why this is not done is a mystery²

41.29.1.1 … Whether or not the woman’s act of eating of the tree, and it is not certain from which tree she eats, is interpreted as base (i.e. unhappy) culpa, i.e. as fault, blame, transgression or sin, or as a felix culpa, i.e. as happy or fortuitous screw-up, is a matter of interpretation. After all, without the woman’s intervention neither you nor I, nor the clerics of the Christian Church would be here to enjoy this awesomely wonderful universe. It appears (from verse 39) that the man regards the woman’s act as a felix culpa since he renames her ‘Life, because she was the mother of all living’. The notion that the woman’s act was a base culpa, a terrible crime, is the invention misanthropic priests of a later age

41.29.1.2 … It is not a mystery if the term adam is read in the sense in which it is used in the 1^st Life of Adam story, namely as man (Greek: anthropos), meaning mankind (made male and female). It is probable that this verse is an authentic part of the original coming-of-age story, and which deals with the passage from infancy to puberty,¹ which is decided by the wearing of clothes (in public)

41.29.1.2.1 … In that case, this story is about perennial recurrence, i.e. about what happens to all humans, in every generation, as they develop from infancy into puberty. Of course, the interpretation of the term ‘adam’ as mankind (or ‘man’) opens up another can of worms, especially for Paul and Augustine. If all humans are born as the (or an) ‘adam’, then all humans are born innocent, i.e. guiltless of ‘missing the mark’ and become guilty or sinful in that they acquire the knowledge of the appropriateness of being clothed in public and inappropriateness of running around in the nude in public (and which might be interpreted as having acquired the knowledge of good and bad)

41.29.2 … It is not known why the Lord God does not send forth the woman (or the serpent) from the garden. If she did not achieve ‘as one of us’ status, then there would have been no reason to send her forth to do her job, namely to act as a ‘help against’. There’s a bit of a mystery here

41.30 … All modern bibles reproduce the Lord God’s judgement on the man and the statement that the man may eat of the tree of life and live forever as one verse.¹ By so doing, these bibles suggest (i.e. interpret) that it is the Lord God who expresses apprehension about what the man might (not will) do and of the consequence of his act. However, the verbal construction of the beginning of the next verse, namely, “and (rather than therefore) the Lord God sent him forth …” suggests that the verse fragment, “and now, lest he put forth his hand, …” is actually part of the sending forth context. In short, the sending forth and the initial reason for it, namely that the man should not live forever, is the personal opinion of the unknown storyteller and not the Lord God’s reason for sending the man forth. There is serious uncertainty here

41.30.1 … Since at the time when the story was first written down all the story fragments (hence narrative memes), and indeed words, indeed consonants, were sequenced without punctuation, it is anybody’s guess as to how the fragments (i.e. contexts) were originally separated to stand alone are to be understood together. If the first two fragments of verse 41 are read together, then it appears that it’s the Lord God who gives the reason for the sending forth.¹ However, if the 2^nd fragment of verse 41 is read together with verse 42, then it’s the storyteller who gives his opinion as to why the Lord God sees the need to send the man forth

41.30.1.1 … However, the true reason for sending the man forth, now that he has become ‘as one of us’, is that he “serve the ground form which he was taken.” The inclusion of the man’s purpose beyond the garden, since it reiterates the purpose for which he was formed in the first place, thereby producing ‘natural’ closure to the (passage) story, suggests that the storyteller’s reason for the sending forth, namely that he should not live forever, is a ‘plant’, that is to say, a later insertion into the story to help resolve the problem of human mortality and explain why the human must endure the harshness of everyday life (i.e. beyond the garden, imagined as garden of delight)

41.31 … When the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad are first grown, neither the Lord God nor the storyteller define their function.¹ It appears to be the storyteller who now states that eating of the tree ensures that the eater to lives forever (i.e. lives out ‘the age’, or lives ‘to an ancient time’)²

41.31.1 … Since the Lord God states that ‘the man has become as one of us’, hence a god, ‘knowing good and bad’, it could be inferred that the function of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is to turn (or upgrade) the individual who eats of it into a god, as indeed, the serpent had suggested when it has told the woman about what ‘the gods know’

41.31.2 … The introduction by the storyteller of a precise description of the tree of life’s function suggests that this verse fragment is an interpolation, added together with verse 43, one that serves to support the ‘crime and punishment’ interpretation of the story. The fact that the Lord God sends the man forth from the garden, hence moves him beyond reach of the tree of life, suggests that the information about the tree of life’s function is redundant, indeed a red herring¹

41.31.2.1 … Mohammad’s truer version of the Adam and Eve story speaks only of the tree of immortality (presumably the tree of life). The man and the woman transgressed when, urged on by Satan (not by the serpent), they eat of the tree of immortality, thereby discovering their evil inclinations. Mohammad recalls (20.120), “But the Shaitan made an evil suggestion to him; he said: O Adam! Shall I guide you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which decays not? (20. 121) Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them,^1,2 and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him). (20.122) Then his Lord chose him, so He turned to him and guided (him). (20.123) He said: Get forth you two therefrom, all (of you), one of you (is) enemy to another (here Mohammad anticipates Benny 16’s notion of ‘mutual recrimination and struggle’, my insertion). So there will surely come to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, he shall not go astray nor be unhappy.”

41.31.2.1.1 … Mohammad’s cryptic quip about ‘evil inclinations’ is, not doubt, exceedingly useful for keeping his followers in suspense and feeling guilty about their nakedness and/or its erotic affects, the more so no one knows what it means. After all, it is difficult to image that being naked is an evil inclination. And, since the man and the man were created a pair, and destined to reproduced, the affect of nakedness on them, for instance, as sexual arousal, can hardly be interpreted as an evil inclination. It appears that Mohammad did not ‘see his evil inclinations’ when cavorting in the nude with one of his numerous wives or slave women

41.31.2.1.2 … Mohammad appears to be suggesting that eating of the tree of immortality (i.e. of ‘life’) initiates the sequence of (sexual) interactions that result in birth, i.e. in reproduction, thereby sustaining life (i.e. the life of the species, i.e. of the adam rather than of Adam) for the foreseeable future. Mohammad’s interpretation of the affect of eating of the tree of immortality does not suggest that the individuals who eat of it will be immortal

41.32 … This is a truly astonishing omission, no doubt resulting from the fact that the storyteller did not know the answer.¹ At least 5 good (i.e. beneficial to the Lord God, or to the man, or to both) reasons come easily to mind why the Lord God would not have wanted the man to live forever ‘as one of us’. Can you figure them out, and perhaps a few more?????²

41.32.1 … Since the Lord God does not give His reason why He does not want the man to live forever, putting a reason or reasons into His mouth, for instance, that the adam is now sinful and/or has lost His sanctifying grace, or that his soul has died, or that he is now ‘cankered and carnal’, or that he has become a ‘vessel of wrath’ (so Augustine), amounts to lying

41.32.2 … Those, such as Paul, who read this story as a crime and punishment parable will interpret the apparent death sentence passed on the man as (the ultimate) punishment. Those unpleasant characters, who worship another god of a football hero, will claim that the man is sentenced to death because he has become a threat to Yahweh, the God of the circumcised (i.e. the Hebrews).¹ Those who observe that life is sustained by (i.e. eats, and is eaten) life, and that reproduction requires the eventual elimination of the producer, realizes that the death of the man is not a punishment but the price to be paid for wonderful gift (horse)

41.32.2.1 …Later on, Yahweh, will sow discord amongst humans so that they are prevented from building a tower to heaven, and which, they say, they wish to do in order to make a name for themselves and not be scattered. Yahweh sows discord, and mayhem, to restrain the humans. Living so harmoniously together, from doing what ‘they imagined to do.’ Apparently Yahweh, jealous, or feeling threatened, imagines that humans are attempting to encroach his patch

41.33 … It is not stated either by the Lord God or the storyteller that not being able to live forever is intended as punishment.¹ Since neither the Lord God nor the storyteller passes judgement on the man’s mortality, nor on its apparent cause or undisclosed purpose, all judgements made on man’s mortality, though understandable from the human’s point of view, are spurious

41.33.1 … Whether or not the sending forth of the (now) godlike dustman is intended by the Lord God as punishment is not stated. Nothing is known about the pleasures and pains of life in the garden in Eden. It is, however, stated that man is put into the garden ‘to serve and guard it.’ Therefore it could be inferred that the garden was not a place of pleasure for the man¹

41.33.1.1 … Since the man is sent forth with godlike capacity, i.e. having achieved the status of ‘as one of us, knowing good and bad’ (presumably knowing the significance of being naked and/or clothed) and in total freedom, it might (???) be assumed that life beyond the garden would be at worst a mixed blessing and at best a new, albeit shortened to 900 years life that offers unlimited opportunities to express one’s innate (i.e. Lord God installed) capacities

41.34 … It is not known how Paul, and his followers, Augustine and Luther, et al., arrive at the conclusion that the man’s flesh, and that of his seed, is corrupted, that is to say, corrupted by the man’s act, and which resulted in the Lord God declaring the man to have become ‘as one of us’, hence to have ‘risen’ rather than to have ‘fallen’. Since the Lord God does not state that the man’s flesh is corrupted, it is not for Paul and his followers to state that it is^1,2

41.34.1 … The fact is, Paul and his followers lied; and we are all the worse for it

41.34.2 … The fanatic cult Paul use ‘the wages of (the adam’s, now everyone’s) sin is death’ ploy, and from which the notion of the corruption of the flesh (i.e. Paul’s ‘sinful nature) is derived, as an instrument of psychological terror wherewith to cow their followers into submission

42.35 … The notion of ‘sin’ (Hebrew: chatta’ah, meaning ‘missing the mark’, hence failure (either to achieve or to sustain the status quo ante) does not appear anywhere in the story. It is not possible to determine if acquiring the knowledge of good and bad, either by illicit means (i.e. by eating of the forbidden tree) or by licit means (i.e. by hearing about it; recall the Lord God’s question to the man, “Who told you that you were naked?”) is in any way a failure,¹ hence sinful. Nor can it been determined that knowledge of nakedness is sinful, despite the fact that it produces (unspecified) fear in some individuals. Since the Lord God does not speak of sin, both Paul’s and Augustine’s claim that the man sinned is pernicious guesswork

42.35.1 … Since the man becomes ‘as one of us’ by knowing good and bad, acquiring the latter can hardly be considered a failure, hence sinful, unless failure is a necessary step to becoming ‘as the gods’. However, since the man does not die in the day from eating the fruit which the woman gave him, it does appear that he did not fail, hence sin

41.36 … This is a very serious problem. The initial reason given by the storyteller for the man’s sending forth, namely that he should not live forever,¹ is not spoken to the man. It is not stated that the man is present when the fact that he should not live forever is disclosed (by the storyteller). The storyteller does not state that the man is informed, at the sending forth or later, of the reason for his sending forth. Certainly, the man does not confirm that he knows the reason for his sending forth, hence why he will die. Why the Lord God does not tell the man that he is to be prevented from eating of the tree of life, and which will result in his death, is not disclosed

41.36.1 … The actual reason given for the sending forth from the garden is that the man should ‘server the ground’, that is to say, that he is to do the job for which he was originally formed. Having become ‘as one of us’ (possibly an adult, therefore ready to reproduced, and smart enough, knowing good and bad, to survive), the man is now ‘fit’ to. Whether or not the man (the adam), as individual, is immortal seems irrelevant (at least to the Lord God) since man (adam), the species, made male and female, is virtually immortal because of his (or its) capacity for endless reproduction¹

41.36.1.1 … The other (i.e. the 1^st) story of adam supports the notion that the term adam refers to the human species rather than to an individual man called Adm. In Genesis 5, verses 1-5, it is clearly stated, “This is the book of the generations of adam. When God (i.e. the ‘powers’, later translated as ‘the gods, i.e. the elohim) created man (i.e. adam), He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them¹ man (possibly Man) when they were created. When adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.² The days of adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.³ Thus all the days that adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years;⁴ and he died.”^5,6,7

41.36.1.1.1 … In our story, it is the man who is given the capacity to name (i.e. to characterise)

41.36.1.1.2 … The birth of Seth corroborates the evidence of the 2^nd Life of Adam version. The birth of Cain and Abel, and their unfortunate troubles, are missing from this version

41.36.1.1.3 … It is not stated how many (unnamed) sons and daughters the adam (i.e. as couple) had. It is not stated how many women bore the man’s sons and daughters

41.36.1.1.4 … Both versions of the Life of Adam state that adam (possibly the man called Adam, possibly the pair) died at 930 years of age

41.36.1.1.5 … The 1^st version of the Life of Adam does not refer to a sojourn in a garden, nor to the creation of the woman from the man’s rib (and which it contradicts), and so on. It does appear that the 2^nd version, namely our story, is a later interpolation into the 1^st version, its purpose being to help resolve the problem of the origin of evil (or wickedness or sin) in the world and to decide a number of gender political issues

41.36.1.1.6 … It is not stated that the man died because he had committed a sin. Nor is it stated that his offspring would be born corrupted (i.e. diseased), hence as criminals (so Augustine)

41.36.1.1.7 … It is not stated that the God (i.e. the gods or ‘powers’, i.e. the elohim) revoked his blessing on the adam (as both male and female)

41.37 … It is made absolutely clear that those¹ who eat of the tree of life live forever, i.e. ‘live out the age’ or ‘live to ancient time’. Since the tree of life is grown with the express purpose of ensuring that those who eat of it live forever, it can deduced that those for whom it is grown do not live forever, hence die, hence that they are formed mortal

41.37.1 … The storyteller does not state (in verse 3) for whom the Lord God grows the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, though, since He grows them in the garden into which He has put the man, it could be assumed that He plants them for benefit of the man^1,2

41.37.1.1 … Why He should then prohibit first the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, thereafter the tree of life, to the man, having just grown them for him, is a bit of a mystery, unless, that is, He grows them for the man that he should eat of them when he is ready so to do; but the man is, perhaps, too young, hence not ready. That is why the Lord God forbids him to eat of first the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, thereafter of the tree of life

41.37.1.2 … The Lord God grows the tree of life before He discovers that He has made a mistake by forming the man alone (or separated). Hence it could be assumed that the Lord God intended the man, made mortal, but without the capacity to be replaced by offspring, and needed to serve the ground, to live forever, i.e. to serve the ground for ever as a labourer. However, once the woman is made, and she and the man discover they are naked (having eaten, or so it is alleged, from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad), and the probability of endless, geometric human reproduction (predicted (possibly commanded) by the Lord God), hence of the production of unlimited numbers of servers (i.e. labourers) of the ground¹ is assured, the need to eat of the tree of life is removed.² Indeed, the fact that the man and the woman and their countless offspring would eat of the tree of life and live forever becomes a nightmare scenario not just for the Lord God, but also for the man and the woman, and for their offspring forever more

41.37.1.2.1 … It must have been obvious to the Lord God that the garden was not big enough to accommodated billions of immortal humans. That’s probably why He sent the man, now ready to reproduce, forth from the garden. Had the man remained alone, ignorant of good and bad and infertile (i.e. non-reproductive), then, no doubt, access to the tree of life would not have been denied (i.e. with the sending forth)

41.37.1.2.2 … In short, the fact that the man is to be prevented from living forever, thereafter being sent forth from the garden to serve the ground, results from an involuntary (and unanticipated) change of plan by the Lord God and a mishap (i.e. felix culpa) (or, perhaps not) on the part of the woman and an error on the part of the man.¹ It cannot be deduced, as Paul and his successors appear to deduce, that being prevented from eating of the tree of life amounts to capital punishment, or that being sent forth from the garden is punishment for having committed a sin. Once reproduction was assured, the Lord God had little choice but to expand the living space of humans and prevent individual, but not species immortality²

41.37.1.2.2.1 … The story (a true parable) describes what happens in a typical family (with one son). The son, probably pre-pubescent, ensconced in a very limited area of activity, i.e. the home, is forbidden to acquire the knowledge of good and bad, lest he, seeking the experience of both good and bad, is driven nuts by that knowledge and begins to vandalise the garden. It is found necessary to make a companion for him to help him cope with his aloneness. Animals are made to distract the boy from his aloneness. That doesn’t work. So a girl i.e. a playmate (of the month), is introduced. She is not, or does not feels bound by the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, yet goes to the tree grown in the midst of the garden, and which is the tree of life, and eats from it.¹ She discovers her nakedness and understands (i.e. knows, i.e. experiences) its meaning. She persuades (or tricks) the boy to experience his nakedness. They put on clothes, thereby demonstrating that nudity in public is a no-no. The lad, hearing the voice of the parent, responds with fear. The parent, hearing that the boy is afraid of his nakedness, realises what has happened, cannot undo what has been done, accepts the fait accompli, explains to the girl and the boy the (negative) consequences of their acts, gives them a set of clothes. Declares them to be adults and, realising that the garden (their home) is now too small to accommodate them and their children (forever more), sends them on their way to do what they have been created to do, the boy-become-man to serve the ground and the girl-become-woman to be his companion and bear his children. Paul, the inveterate misanthrope, got that one badly wrong

41.37.1.2.2.1.1 … Whether or not eating of the tree of life activates the life (or reproduction) function,¹ including mating rituals, in those who eat of it is not stated. There is much uncertainty here since, after eating of the tree (and it is uncertain from which tree the pair eat), the man “called the woman’s name (or character) “Life (or ‘Living’), because she was the mother of all living”.” It could be inferred from the foregoing that eating of the tree of life kick-starts the life giving function (i.e. as in puberty, i.e. with the observation of anatomical differences)²

41.37.1.2.2.1.1.1 … Augustine invents a fabulous fantasy, yet probably true, regarding the affects of eating the forbidden fruit. He writes, “They experienced a new motion of their flesh, which had become disobedient (??, actually obedient, my insertion) 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.” Elsewhere he glosses (though without providing evidence), “… but it is imputable to the sin of that disobedience which was followed by the penalty of man's (generic man?, my insertion) finding his own members (more than one?, my insertion) emulating against himself that very disobedience which he had practised against God.” And, “For unless some indelicacy of motion had announced to their eyes - which were of course not closed, though not open to this point, that is, not attentive - that those particular members should be corrected, they would not have perceived anything on their own persons, which God had entirely made worthy of all praise, that called for either shame or concealment.”

41.37.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 … If one takes verse 44, and indeed the whole of Genesis 4, into account, then a clear pattern emerges. Genesis 2 describes birth (i.e. formation or creation) and infancy (i.e. of mankind, hence of men and women), whereby the garden (including free lunches) serves as kindergarten. Genesis 3 describes the passage from infancy to puberty, i.e. when the awareness of nakedness (and its implications) emerges.¹ Genesis 4 describes adult (and family) life, with its ups and downs

41.37.1.2.2.1.1.1.2 … It’s when the adam (or any (young) person, Greek: anthropos) emerges into puberty, i.e. by (functionally) knowing (i.e. as experiencing), i.e. discovering (the affect and (relational) meaning of) his nakedness that the Lord God releases him (fully clothed) from the kindergarten in Eden, that is to say, into Eden and beyond, to do the job for which He is formed, namely to serve the ground. Whether or not the (functional) knowledge (or experience) of nakedness, or the emergence, by whatever means (i.e. by eating of the forbidden tree or by hearing about its affects from someone (see verse 30), of that functional knowledge (or experience) is to be judged as sinful, wicked, evil, hence as cause of death (i.e. as capital punishment, as Paul and the brainless (i.e. text blind) dummies who parrot his opinion claim), is difficult to decide

41.37.1.2.2.2 … However, since the term adam is originally understood (i.e. in the 1^st version of the Life of Adam story) as mankind, rather than as a particular man called Adam, the adam (i.e. mankind) can in fact reproduce and therefore live ad infinitum, i.e. forever. In short, individual humans, made mortal, die; but the human species ‘lives out the age’

Return