The_Omnissiah
Genesis chapters 1-3
Posted on: 11/07/2009 00:59
So i'm reading the torah, and having a jolly old time about it.
Did anyone notice that God "in the beginning" speaks as if...well...it is plural?
"And we made them in our image".
And as soon as Adam and Eve ate from the tree, God(s?) banished them from the garden so they could not eat from the tree of everlasting life. If you believe as I believe (that by "created in God's own image" the bible means we are created as creators, just as God is the creator), would this mean that in this section, the book of genesis is suggesting that God or Gods are simply a hyper advanced group of creators that did eat from the last tree of everlasting life?
I don't mean to bring aliens into this...but it is an angle I've never heard covered before. Perhaps (this is more in line with what I believe), speaking in the plural suggests being mulitple, as in able to be everyone at once...panentheism/pantheism?
Interesting.
Regarding the snake, I believe the snake represents literalism (in my mind...sacred text literalism). The snake tells eve that "You surely will not die" and then Eve eats the fruit. But God promised Adam and Eve they would surely die if they ate from the tree of knowledge.
So something must have died right? It wasen't a physical death (literalism) that is for sure.
So what has changed now after the eating of the fruit? Their innocence is dead. They now know the difference between good and evil, between modesty and shame and all that. So God must have ment that their innocence would surely die.
Now that leads us to wonder...does this mean that now Mankind has to follow all these religious rules because they now know the difference between good and evil? Thus is the price of losing one's innocence? Now we can be honestly guilty?
Or does it mean that we now have to choose between the laws we follow? We now have free will because we chose to disobey God, and now have lost our innocence? Does it mean that even if we don't follow the 613 hebrew laws...we will still be alright in the eyes of God as long as we have an understanding that has led us to believe that our actions are good instead of evil?
As long as we can account for our actions, they are OK in the eyes of God? Is the bible (the Hebrew part at least) endorsing moral relativism?
Big questions, all of them...I will ponder further tonight as I read more.
What say you all?
As-salaamu alaikum
-Omni
Search
Comments
YouthWorker
Posted on: 11/08/2009 18:42
Interesting thoughts.
Would be interesting to find out which versions of the text refer to God in plurality and which do not. Does the Torah have multiple English translations like the Bible?
(I'm thinking not, because when I was at an interfaith Shabbat service at the local synagogue, the Rabbi was telling us that all Jews must learn Hebrew and the Torah is read in Hebrew. At least, that's what I remember him saying, and I've been wrong before.)
You're reading the Torah. Do versions of the Bible refer to God in plurality? (And I'm too lazy to go and get mine.)
Another aspect is the very nature of God. Is God actually a singular or plural being? Or is God a more intangible essence, like the very air we breathe? If God is not an actual being, but rather something on an entirely different level, then pronouns do not do God justice, nor truly apply.
artemisia
Posted on: 11/09/2009 12:19
Do versions of the Bible refer to God in plurality?
Yes, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible does. In the NRSV, the first creation story says: "God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness'..." It's only in the second creation story (the Garden of Eden one) that "the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground" and made woman from his rib.
The_Omnissiah
Posted on: 11/09/2009 15:15
You know what else I noticed? The people back then were so inventive...they resuse the names "Enoch" and "Lamech" twice each...I mean your supposedly the first generations on earth and you can't come up with something new? Or did your 900 year lifespans make you forgetful of who your relatives were? lol
As-salaamu alaikum
-Omni
JRT
Posted on: 11/10/2009 09:29
The ancient Hebrews were not originally monotheistic. They recognized the entire pantheon of mid-eastern gods but worshipped just one as their exclusive tribal deity. This was El. This understanding of the divine is known as henotheism. As time passed they came to think of El as not just as 'their god' but as the 'only God'. This, of course, is monotheism. Viewed with this understanding Elohim as plural does not refer to the theory of the trinity. The 'we' is simply the pantheon of the gods.
Warriorcleric
Posted on: 11/29/2009 18:34
I especially like how Cain is afraid of other people... If he killed his brother and is sent away he should only have to worry about Seth and his own sisters. And yet "Anyone that comes across me will kill me"... Also... I've always enjoyed the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man. Sort of has remenisinces of the Titans no?
But we should know better than to expect an ancient record of an oral legendary and mythic tradition to be as cogent as Thomas Aquinas. Not only are we talking about an ancient text, we are talking about an ancient language and worldview that is one of the first attempts at that sort of thing. Not too many thousand years before that and we were struggling to communicate to our own family groups, let alone write down what we think we know. It's no surprise that they don't seem consistent to us. We have 5000 years of linguistic evolution on them... Which also means that we have 5000 years evolution of understanding and comprehension on them, because humans comprehend everything through language. Personally I prefer the messy mythologies. There's more life in them. Aquinas is boring. Hercules is fun.