I have a question for Biblical scholars (specifically those that have read its original versions) which has kind of nagged me for a while.
Let me start by admitting that I see the bible as mainly a hodge-podge of earlier (and some contemporary for that time period) mythological stories. Some of course are based on historic realities, even if biased accounts of them, but other passages much less real.
The mythic portions I believe to be allegories, or perhaps better termed "fables" or "teachings" rather than literal accounts. I assume most of you will be with me up to this point.
Now here's the deal... The "fall of man" and his redemption by Christ has NEVER read to me the way I have always heard it interpreted. I have read it many times and simply do not see what religious types claim is being said. Granted this is helped by my not taking it literally, but even taken in a literal sense that only really effects the Christ portion.
.........
1) The "Fall" of man: From the Bible Adam and Eve start out in the "paradise" of Eden. Whether literal or figurative makes no difference. They live here free and naked and fully sexual, and one must assume having children as God's curse later is that from then on childbirth would be painful.
In other words they were living a very free existence that is almost verboten by today's religious standards. In fact, there are no proscriptions against any sexual behavior (and obviously incest is a necessity at this point of the game).
Yet I almost universally hear that while Eve's "eating the apple", brought sin upon all of mankind for having disobeyed God, their nudity was really bad, their sexuality was bad, and they only properly realized it after eating the apple.
That just does not make sense to me. Literally God tells this couple he has set nude and sexual into paradise, not to eat from the tree of Knowledge. But what was that Knowledge that they gained from eating its fruit? Not knowledge of sex or nudity (which obviously they had been practicing) but the knowledge that things like sex and nudity are wrong.
Doesn't that, even taken literally, mean that it was man's learning to judge God's creations as right and wrong (and therefore to judge God himself) which is the only sin which concerned God? Like He was insulted to have his own creations feel upset with the way he has them living?
That would make the curse he set upon man all the more meaningful. Essentially he made their newfound judgements and fears about his--- up to that point--- beautiful creation, concrete.
Even taken literally the rest of the Bible makes sense, albeit in a different tone. First he creates basic rules to bind his "chosen people" closer to himself (once again saying "don't eat at the tree" and judge me from some other standard) as well as rules of basic conduct which would make sense given their judgemental attitudes.
Taken allegorically it is almost Eastern in flavor, or true Epicurean if we think of Greek culture. Essentially man is in a state of paradise until he learns to judge... which man mistakes as knowledge. Without judgements of right and wrong life just is what it is.
But man does judge. It appears to be a fact of nature that most men choose to judge, or impose their judgements. And most of them are in relation to sex, property, and what the nature of the world really is. So unite under one common belief, and live according to these rules of behavior which will end conflicts based on feelings of jealousy or hatred (which naturally arise from judgements about the state of the world).
2) Christ's redemption of man. Although God's 10 little lessons should have worked, they did not. Instead more judgements have continued in the name of those rules. Paradise has not rematerialized.
So God sends down a son to help man reattain the nonjudgemental attitude once held in paradise. Kind of cutting to the heart of the problem. Look at all of Christ's teachings. They are about not worrying about one's condition in life and not judging others. He specifically does not say hey cut out all of that sexiness and sinfulness so you will be better off (ie lets stone the prostitute). He says stop imposing rules and judging others, look to yourself and trust that love of God and his creations will be enough.
Again, the allegory fits along these same lines. Seek peace in trying to attain inner calm no matter what the world and others toss at you.
.........
Now am I totally crazy in coming away from the Bible with this interpretation? Literal or allegorical?
What does the original text use for its words regarding that "tree of knowledge" whose fruits brought sin down on mankind?
I'm sure to catch hell for this post, but I just gotta know.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-21-2003]
™ Version 4.2