Printable View
So, studying the bit in Genesis about the garden of Eden, I analysed the psychology. It seems as if the writer has either a repressed sexuality, or possibly even a strange one- if we take the story as being metaphorical. Could this writer be responsible for centuries of misogynism?
I read somewhere that what we read today as the Genesis has it's origin in Babylonian mythology. Especially the part about the Garden of Eden seems to be copied. So I couldn't really answer your question because I'm not sure about the term 'writer'. But as a creation in its whole I'm guessing you're hinting at the part about Eve coming second and being made from Adam's rib.
I always find that strange when I read it. And I guess during the Middle Ages especially it was easy to interpret that part as a role model for the reationship between man and woman and how God apparently intended it to be.
How come they never thought of God as an artist. You know. Making a frist draft or scetch or whatever. Flexing his muscles gearing up for the tough challenge of creating the beautiful female body. I must say I quite like that idea.
But seriously I think you might be right in the way that it has certainly given way to maltreatment of women's position in society. But I would only go as far as the Age of Enlightment. After that era I get the feeling that the Bible was treated more and more as a collection of stories.
And not a guidance brochure for the structuring of our society.
I don't understand why there has to be any interpretation where one gender is inferior to the other. Everybody remembers that Eve was created after Adam, but they forget that she was created from his rib so would be neither below nor above him, but equal. That's also why Eve can't be blamed for Adam eating the apple, because they both had equal choice. They both took a bite ... because they are equal in their failures as well as their success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinivere
Remember that nothing in the Bible was original, so the writers of the bible were thieves, not perverts.
I agree. And the punishment was the same for both as well. So if we believe that the punishment fits the crime then they must have equally sinned in the same measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
But Eve "coming second" was used during the MA as a way to put women in their place. And of course the Eve's special punishment, meaning pain during labour for every women after her was another way for priest, bishops, etc. to downsize women. So whether we agree, and of course we don't is beside the point.
The question was wether the tale of the Garden of Eden had an effect on how women were treated in centuries to come. And I do believe it did.
This I find very interesting (and rather sickening),
God - over
Men - over
Women - over
the Earth.
Robert McElvaine
According to him Men can be the sons of God, but all women are the daughters of men. Of course this has nothing to do with God as the creator of both. But it is nevertheless nteresting what people make of the material.
Nothing ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
What about the story of Joseph ? And the Psalms. They have an author in David and Solomon.
A lot of the stories that are contained in the Old Testament can be found in older Babylonian text and Jesus of the New Testament is very similar to Joseph of the O.T. and other deities like Horace of Egyptian mythology, but mediocre writers borrow and great writers steal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
I think it is backward rationalization for men. I don't think is was the story of Genesis that influenced the treatment of women, but it was definitely used to justify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinivere
I would love to know if God is my father, but he's not available for a paternity test, so I'm left with that mortal I call my dad.;)
:D You're a funny one.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
A sweeping generalization of the highest order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Which writer? The first Chapter, which is generally considered to be a rather late composition as the history of the text goes, is believed to have had more than one author. Which one in particular?
As I see it, I consider chapter 3 to be in complete contradiction to chapter one, and therefore I think the text remains ambiguous and flawed, and difficult to interpret.
Oh well. The good majority of the bible is stolen from other mythologies. It was bound to happen, given the previous 248,000 years of human history that preceded "The good book". I could almost guarantee that more than 3/4 of the bible was stolen, borrowed, or copied from another mythology, I think that's enough to safely make a "sweeping generalization". The remainder of the stories that can't be proven were taken aren't nearly as important as the ones that are, like the character of Jesus and the book of genesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
What of the possibility that the stories came from the same source, but Babylon documented them first, making no one a thief?
And how did Babylon date their documents so that you know they were so old? Did they use the B.C. countdown? Perhaps the dating methods are not as accurate as some claim.
The rib things the part that shows woman is joined to man, as man is joined to the earth. Eve was the younger and more foolish one and she told Adam to eat the apple. He had greater incentive to eat it because she had already done so- essentially the Bible implies that women corrupted men.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
I haven't posted in a while but this one is tempting. The story of the garden of Eden and he apple has always been one of my favorites. The beginning of the story is loaded with symbolism that is well worth repeating. After creating the world and plant life. Adam is given life and set in the garden alone with the condition that he not eat from the tree of the “knowledge of good an evil”. He is alone. He knows no evil. He also knows no good. Things just are …without the weight of prejudice. Very Buddhist. Very existential. He cannot possibly understand what he is forbidden to do. After making all of the other creatures, and having Adam give them names, God, not Adam, decides he needs a helper. Not a mate.
Eve is made from Adam’s rib. This implies that Adam himself is now incomplete. It also implies that Eve is “the completion of” Adam himself. Without each other both are only part. “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” and “Bone of my Bone, Flesh of my Flesh” In other words they are the same. It is Adam who leaves his family to “cleave” to Eve not the other way around. (Hormones) They are naked without shame. The no shame part is key.
In the beginning Adam and Eve are not quite human. They are more like the animals. They live in the garden. They are taken care of by nature alone.
In the ancient world the snake, because of it’s shedding skin, is a symbol for the cycle of birth and death. The Eve not yet but soon to be the female, is approached by the symbol for life and death itself, the serpent. This power cannot approach the would-be male. It is meaningless. This power questions her and offers that the fruit to eat, (taking something inside). The act will change Adam and Eve to know good and evil. How so?
She and Adam take the fruit and become aware that they are naked? This is the knowledge of good and evil? To be naked. How not worth the price of admission. I think the answer more to the point is that they became self conscious. In other words they became aware that others are aware of them. God re-enforces this by asking Adam “Who told you that you are naked?” Adam is now capable of walking in another man’s shoes. He is therefore responsible. He is now cable of doing good and evil. Prior to this point he could only do things that had no weight for his mind. He is a man. He is not just another simple creature. Isn’t this what separates us from the animals? At this point God looses his mind and starts coming down hard. Is it really God? Isn’t what follows the result of being human? A Jedi mind trick and fix it all. Instead God says very well but here is all the bad stuff that follows. Then we get a re-enforcement of cultural norms that seems to me to be disconnected from the original beginning.
My point is to look at the story for what it is. It is a story from a given culture long ago with a poetic message about the human condition. Overall I think it shows a true depth of insight.
Just my thoughts