A Biblical Exegesis

Right.

I'm saying how both of them could be true. If the second is an elaboration on the first, then the first is true in saying He created man and woman in one day.

Meh, whatever. I think that I'll just stick with explaining apocryphal interpretations.

On that note: Kabbalists translate the first line, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", instead as "In the beginning it created God, heaven, and the earth.". This is apparently a valid interpretation of the Hebrew. The idea is that Ein Sof, the being beyond time and space and bla bla bla and the real "god", created the God of The Bible as its agent.

I've heard that before, Kinka. I've heard that "day" isn't an accurate rendering of the original Hebrew before, too, but I think the contradiction is more complicated than that.

Well, I guess I'll just have to read on.

Read on, my dear rival.

So many posts and only a chapter in.

Proof that this is indeed a controversial book.

@Kink: Ah, but how can two different, somewhat conflicting sources both be true?

My take? The Bible tries its best to be a complete system, and as such, it runs the rather high, and necessary, risk of inconsistency. I soooo did not just pull that out of my ass.

Yeah, the apocrypha are more fun, Tzetze.

Please do not attempt to imply metalogic to sacred texts, Lucky. Although... that is an interesting thought.

Statistics is cool though. Go Knuth!

Genesis 2

So. The universe has been completed. God has finished what He was doing, so He stops working. He blesses the seventh day and sets it apart as a special day.

Now, "The Garden of Eden".

We are informed that when the Lord God (note the new honorific) made the universe, no plants could grow because there was no grain and no cultivation. However, the ground can be watered by springwater seeping up from underground.

The Lord God makes a man out of soil and breathes into his nostrils. The man comes to life. I believe this is the version of the story that most people are more familiar with. Note that the passage has thusfar made no mention whatsoever of what day it is.

The Lord God then plants a garden in Eden, in the East, and places the man there. He plants beautiful trees there which will produce good fruit, and in the centre he plants "the tree that gives life and the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (or "knowledge of everything", says Mr. Footnote). It sounds like these are two different trees, but it's not totally clear.

Eden is watered by a stream which divides into four rivers after leaving the garden. These are: the Pishon which flows around Havilah (where there may be found pure gold, rare perfume and precious stones, apparently, so yay), the Gihon which flows around Cush, the Tigris which flows east of Assyria, and the Euphrates. It doesn't say where the Euphrates flows, but the answer is Mesopotamia, if you were wondering. Which is nowhere near where Cush used to be, but never mind.

Then the Lord God places the man in Eden (again?) to cultivate and protect the garden. He warns the man that he may eat any of the fruits in the garden, except those of the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. If he eats that fruit, he will die on that same day.

The Lord God then decides to make man a companion to help him. So He takes soil from the earth and forms all the animals and birds from it. Now, that is a direct contradiction of the last chapter's events, no matter what day this is.

The man gives names to the various animals, but none of them is suited to helping him. So the Lord God puts the man to sleep and removes one of his ribs, sealing up the wound afterwards. He makes the rib into a woman and brings it to the man. The man names her "Woman", because she was taken from man (this part makes more sense in Hebrew, obviously).

We are then informed that this is why a man leaves his parents and is united with his wife, and they become one - because she is bone from his bone and flesh from his flesh. And it was just so, Best Beloved, do you see?

They were both totally naked, but they weren't ashamed of this.

*cue immature snickering, as per El The Daze's request*

End of chapter.

Ah, the time when nudism was not controversial.

Take note that I'm not into literal interpretations.

Hmm. So he actually does use the word "die?"

^^ Noted. I always preferred to see this passage as either a metaphor, or two divinely inspired attempts to explain the nature of the universe, but lacking in sufficient scientific knowledge to be completely accurate.

But, I'm trying to keep an open mind here, so a literal reading is worth considering, I think.

^ Yes, in this version. Genesis 2 v 17. Give me a moment to compare the other editions I have.

Edit: It's the same in all the versions I have. It's pretty unambiguous about it, too: "You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."

edited 25th Dec '09 7:28:34 PM by BobbyG

The Lord God makes a man out of soil and breathes into his nostrils.

Just wanted to take this moment to say that I have long given mystical aspects to breath. That's why that sentence stuck out to me.

Also, is Seth, the guy that returns to Eden, actually in the Bible? Guess we'll find out.

It's a wonder how much you can learn about Christianity from reading Clive Barker interviews. Half the stuff I know about it I got from those, the other half from Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth

Also, has anyone read the Mark Twain thing about Adam and Eve? It's titled something like, Adam's Journal or something. Can't really remember. Basically, Adam wasn't aware what Eve was supposed to be, and it was really funny. Also, she tried to tame a Brontosaurus. Also funny.

Um...Lilith? I'm done.

edited 25th Dec '09 7:30:30 PM by Lucky Revenant

Seth and Lilith are not in the bible.

I knew Lilith wasn't. I wasn't sure if Seth was or not. Guess not then.

Okay, seriously, the Apocrypha are way more fun. I need to get my hands on some of those.

Just looked it up, and Seth is in the Bible. The Hebrew Bible. The Jews got everything right!

edited 25th Dec '09 7:35:28 PM by Lucky Revenant

The Seth in the Bible is a different one from the apocryphal one.

Oh, yeah. Apparently, in the Gnostic apocrypha, Seth was given texts by Adam that became the Kabbbalah.

Dammit Tzetze, where are you to weigh in on this?

Also, I don't see anything on the Wiki about Seth going back to Eden. Hm...

edited 25th Dec '09 7:37:11 PM by Lucky Revenant

I just thought of something stupid

Aren't the apocrypha basically fanfiction of The Bible?

Yep. Controversial Fanfic.

Needs moar Gnosticism. Some Gnostic texts considered the serpent to be a heroic agent of Barbelo.

Tzetze, why didn't you liveblog your Gnostic bible?

Aren't the apocrypha basically fanfiction of The Bible?

Well technically, in some cases. But a lot of it was written for a reason - 3 Corinthians to refute the Gnostics, for example.

Now considering that most of the books weren't written by their subjects, but later (usually after their deaths), you might as well call most of canon Real-Person Fic.

That made me wonder why Gnosticism is well-known here.

Then the answer looked at me straight in the face.

Are you implying that Gnosticism is well known because of Tzetze? I found out about it because of...Xenosaga I think.

Calling them fanfic is a bit unfair, I think. Of course, the authenticity of many of them is questionable, but then, it's not like the authenticity of many of the canonical books hasn't been questioned in the past.

To my mind, the most interesting thing about the apocrypha is that, seeing as the Bible is actually a collection of books, any one of those texts could have made it in, had they been approved and canonised. They aren't really relevant to Christianity, of course, but they're an interesting glimpse at What Could Have Been, had the early Christians deemed them genuine and worthy of inclusion.

Of course that's why it's controversial, I think.