The Forbidden Tree

[njineermike]

njineermike - I get it. We see things differently. No harm in that.

I have an obvious flaw in my point of view in that I lack direct evidence. But I've learned enough about the ancient world, mythology, story & such to know that themes and meanings are often presented indirectly. And that the intended meaning isn't always known by those who transmit the story. Often, the intended meanings are lost even if the stories endure. To me, this is fascinating. One culture starts the story and a different one picks it up, changes it and passes it on. A good example is the Ba'al/Yam battle I've mentioned before. The Canaanites started it. The author of Daniel changed it to their cultural beliefs & deities. Then John adapted it yet again in Revelation. Each had a message that had nothing to do with the details of the story. Each was trying to soothe the pains and ills of their people during difficult times.

Similar things happened with Job -- it's a tale much older than the historical man of Job could have been and was widespread among ancient Semitic cultures. I realize that this flies in the face of many folks' beliefs about the infallible word of God and the supremacy of Christianity. But I don't share that belief anyway.

Clearly, if I wanted to PROVE my thesis scientifically or something, I'd be up the creek without a paddle. You've got me there. But I'll also challenge the notion that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Our scientific method and our rules of courtroom proof have little street cred in the interpretation of ancient mythology. It's a world of its own with its own rules and codes of conduct. I wouldn't rely on the Bible to PROVE that an event happened historically (some of the details are just flat wrong after all). But it's worth a look as a good starting point.

So if you're hoping to convince me that I'm wrong, it's going to take a different point of view than what you have since I don't hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God. I see it as a lot of valuable ancient wisdom with a ton of mystery and even some problems of its own. Near Eastern history, anthropology, archaeology, language, mythology, etc. are far more convincing to me than a collection of writings spanning 1300 years of massive changes in a country the size of New Jersey. When the all gel together, I'm inclined to pay attention. When they diverge, I remain skeptical of anything being definitive one way or another.

So I'm open to some challenges of the interpretation I've given -- I'm not married to it. But I also don't need to convince you I'm right either. Ultimately, I'm a man of action. Words, thoughts and beliefs, to me, are just the ways that we rationalize our behavior. And only what we do matters. If our words contradict our behavior, then our words are meaningless. So, since I do a little bit of farming and live a my life in the benefits of civilization, it's all just BS anyway -- mere thought experiments and nothing to get upset about one way or another. Again, just my 2-cents.

Wrong or right isn't my judgement to make. I look at it this way: Just because other cultures had similar stories doesn't make those from the bible less legitimate. Take the flood. Many cultures all over the planet have very similar flood stories. Does the fact that they have one invalidate any other? Could something be rooted in fact, but spread through migration?

[CVShooter]

Wrong or right isn't my judgement to make. I look at it this way: Just because other cultures had similar stories doesn't make those from the bible less legitimate. Take the flood. Many cultures all over the planet have very similar flood stories. Does the fact that they have one invalidate any other? Could something be rooted in fact, but spread through migration?

Yea, we agree there. The deluge is a perfect example, too -- good call there. Yes, stories spread via migration, via conquest, via assimilation, etc. They also change via context, time, language, etc. And they mean different things to different people and it's not always what the teller of the story intended.

A good example of that is Jesus's triumphant entry into the Eastern Gate of Jerusalem. Here in America and most of the west, we tell the story to emphasize Jesus's humility. Yet the opposite would have been understood by anybody in the ancient Near East. Nobility rode donkeys. Servants walked. Few would have rode horses because stirrups weren't used outside of the far east until the middle ages. Horses pulled chariots in warfare but without stirrups, they're uncomfortable to ride, mount and dismount. So Jesus rode in on a donkey through the Eastern gate as a show of power, not humility. And it's no wonder the authorities came after him shortly after that -- he had to have known what to expect from such a gesture of political rebellion. Details aside, we tell the story here to emphasize what we like about Jesus -- his humility. Yet the story was intended to show his growing political strength just before his subsequent arrest and execution. The story is likely true. There's no reason to think otherwise. But the meaning has changed to be the exact opposite of what was intended. More importantly, nobody seems to care and the story remains changed.

There are other examples, such as the parable of the talents (taking interest was illegal under the Torah yet it is encouraged by the parable as a minimum effort of stewardship). But I think you get my point.

To answer your question, I wouldn't say that it makes the Bible any less legitimate than all the other stories. But neither would I say that it is more legitimate either. It's just a piece of the puzzle to me. It's a heck of a good piece in that puzzle. But still limited. Again, just my opinion.

So going back to my original post, I am curious if others have seen any similar themes from Genesis. But it appears that nobody in this group has any other interpretations other than the traditional ones or just an outright rejection of it all together.

Perhaps a good follow up post would be one to explore alternative interpretations in other parts of the Bible. I'm not as well-versed in the scriptures of other religions so I can't speak to those. But it would be fun to read, nonetheless.

[mif_slim]

CVS, you. brought up Jesus and the donkey. What are your thoughts on the resurrection?

[Dezrat]

Yea, we agree there. The deluge is a perfect example, too -- good call there. Yes, stories spread via migration, via conquest, via assimilation, etc. They also change via context, time, language, etc. And they mean different things to different people and it's not always what the teller of the story intended.

A good example of that is Jesus's triumphant entry into the Eastern Gate of Jerusalem. Here in America and most of the west, we tell the story to emphasize Jesus's humility. Yet the opposite would have been understood by anybody in the ancient Near East. Nobility rode donkeys. Servants walked. Few would have rode horses because stirrups weren't used outside of the far east until the middle ages. Horses pulled chariots in warfare but without stirrups, they're uncomfortable to ride, mount and dismount. So Jesus rode in on a donkey through the Eastern gate as a show of power, not humility. And it's no wonder the authorities came after him shortly after that -- he had to have known what to expect from such a gesture of political rebellion. Details aside, we tell the story here to emphasize what we like about Jesus -- his humility. Yet the story was intended to show his growing political strength just before his subsequent arrest and execution. The story is likely true. There's no reason to think otherwise. But the meaning has changed to be the exact opposite of what was intended. More importantly, nobody seems to care and the story remains changed.

There are other examples, such as the parable of the talents (taking interest was illegal under the Torah yet it is encouraged by the parable as a minimum effort of stewardship). But I think you get my point.

To answer your question, I wouldn't say that it makes the Bible any less legitimate than all the other stories. But neither would I say that it is more legitimate either. It's just a piece of the puzzle to me. It's a heck of a good piece in that puzzle. But still limited. Again, just my opinion.

So going back to my original post, I am curious if others have seen any similar themes from Genesis. But it appears that nobody in this group has any other interpretations other than the traditional ones or just an outright rejection of it all together.

Perhaps a good follow up post would be one to explore alternative interpretations in other parts of the Bible. I'm not as well-versed in the scriptures of other religions so I can't speak to those. But it would be fun to read, nonetheless.

Zech 9:9- Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

Prophesy concerning the triumphal entry penned at the hand of an ancient Near Easterner, but then what would he have known about ancient Near Easterners....... But what's amazing is that this prophetic depiction of the event was penned hundreds of years prior to the event, so the meaning of the story had been morphed into something it wasn't supposed to mean, by an ancient Near Easterner, before the event ever even took place. The mind boggles!

[njineermike]

Zech 9:9- Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

Prophesy concerning the triumphal entry penned at the hand of an ancient Near Easterner, but then what would he have known about ancient Near Easterners....... But what's amazing is that this prophetic depiction of the event was penned hundreds of years prior to the event, so the meaning of the story had been morphed into something it wasn't supposed to mean, by an ancient Near Easterner, before the event ever even took place. The mind boggles!

The donkey riding was symbolic of the Jewish royalty. Kings rode on a donkey to symbolize peace and humility, in that weren't supposed to be above the people, but one with the people. Kings of other lands rose horses, indicating superiority. The bible indicates there was never supposed to be a king. Man chose that for themselves (seems to be a pattern here), and that is also why the kings were commanded to write the law (torah) in their own hand, also symbolizing adherence to the religious law as a guideline. The law was supposed to encourage a humble attitude. Jesus riding the donkey wasn't to display humility, he was already humble. It was a sign he was the promised king arriving. The people misunderstood how his rule would be implemented. They expected a military leader.

[CVShooter]

[CVShooter]