Is Genesis True?

[Thief]

not having the words or even the language to communicate the knowledge, they resorted to parable and metaphor.

but parables and metaphor.....ARE.....words

 

[Windwalker]

I suppose that I assumed that admitting the genesis account was pure symbolism would put one in the position of taking reality for what it is, and not assigning "divinity" to human beings in the first place.

That's interesting. Do you understand symbolism in the sense of a "mere symbol", meaning that it has no real value because it's not factual? For me, to recognize it as symbolic evelvates its value, as symbols are in fact more powerful and more meaningful than facts. To make Genesis "facts" reduces its value symbolically. It turns God into a Yeti, as I like to say.

I feel that "divinity" is not well defined.

It is of course a symbolic term which makes it open ended. To define God, or the Divine, just makes it an object of belief, like a Yeti, or an ET, or a UFO or something. Perceived "facts" limit the possible, placing boundaries around itself. Symbolic truths on the other hand inspire the possible to open into realization.

We could say that humans "have" it - but we defined it, and assume it is some higher state of being (fundamentally). So all we're really doing when we say "humans are divine" (or even partly divine) is assigning ourselves an attribute that puts us above other things. Which sounds mostly like arrogance to me.

Not at all. Those that view the Divine as an extension of the egos, are not looking at the divine at all. To say, "I have God within, therefore I'm better than you," shows that person is speaking strictly from their own weak ego. The expression of God within is always Grace and humility. It recognizes God in all of creation, of which you are part of.

In my opinion, arrogance itself is a fall from a (subjectively) better state. And so... for humans to consider themselves divine is, in itself, a "fall" from the more graceful position of humility.

If they "consider themselves" that, then that is the ego. It's an image of the egos projected on the divine curtain of reality in their own self-created show about themselves in which they are the star. To realize the divine state in themselves, is exactly as both you and I have say, a "position of grace and humility".

So it is exactly that realization of what is in us, that Grace and humility, that the egoic sense of self experiences as "fallen from", in that it can't quit looking into the mirror and asking who am I in this body? It senses there is something more than the narcissistic self, some higher "me" that is beyond all that, and which is in fleeting moments of life glimpsed and realized which is then symbolically held as the Ultimate Truth of ourselves and all that is.

That's the point of symbolism, to open oneself to the next stage of awakening from the mud of the ego to the true Self, beyond the ego and "better than" images of itself in comparison to the rest of creation, which ironically is the very thing itself which creates that separation, or "fall from Grace".

 

[David T]

So there is no symbolic truth because it's not scientifically factual? Could the author(s) have been trying to express how they viewed their spiritual states as human beings through these made-up characters?

One would think we would have the intellect and maturity today to understand what you said. The opposite is scientific fact.

 

[Windwalker]

I think that when the bible folk saw something or became aware of something not having the words or even the language to communicate the knowledge, they resorted to parable and metaphor. Sometimes reading or hearing those, I think: "Oh Hey!"

Although I would argue that all language is metaphor in this sense. It's when we understand they are symbolic that meaning can take wings. It's when we flatten it as definitions of reality, that our wings get clipped.

 

[WalterTrull]

but parables and metaphor.....ARE.....words

Mmmm... think we sort of went around the corner there.

 

[Windwalker]

One would think we would have the intellect and maturity today to understand what you said. The opposite is scientific fact.

I know. Which is a bit disconcerting we have "fallen" so far from a symbolic reality into the land of one-dimensional so-called "facts". This from an essay written sometime ago called Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance, by Conrad Hyers:

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.
....

The problem is, no doubt, further amplified by the obviousness and banality of most of the television programming on which the present generation has been weaned and reared. Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced.

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.​

There is much more he wrote in this but this capture it well. Both biblical literalism and scientism share the same source, a lack of symbolic thought.

 

[Sanzbir]

Even if you take it to be symbolic, what is it symbolic of?

The first symbol to look at is the symbolism of male and female. This symbolism is typical in the ancient age of the male symbolic of the heavenly and the female symbolic of the earthly. That is why in many early polytheistic religions you have often have male gods governing the sky, and female goddesses governing the earth. Compare to Dievs/Mara in Baltic Paganism or Uranus/Gaia in Hellenic stories.

The dichotomy of male Adam and female Eve then could be understood as being representative of the spiritual or non-materialistic side of mankind and its material side. This would explain why Eve is tempted first and in turn tempts Adam, as the materialistic side of a person is what first is tempted, and from the temptations of that side, the non-materialistic side may follow the materialistic side.

Eden is said to be perfect. Eating the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil" causes one to leave Eden, and also causes one to see things in terms of good and bad, and causes Adam and Eve suffering when they ascribe "bad" to their state of nudity after adopting this "knowledge". After they eat the fruit / adopt the "knowledge", they are cast out of Eden and no longer live in a perfect world.

Although it is of note that even before they are cast out, Eden itself becomes imperfect in their eyes, no longer a paradise. While before the fruit, they were content with the nudity of Eden, after the fruit, they clearly viewed this as a flaw in the state of their lifestyle.

It's important to note that if you were to not view anything in the world in terms of "good" and "bad" you would view the world as "perfect", since in your eyes it contained no bad whatsoever. No matter how hellish the world you live in is, if you don't view it through a lens of good and bad, it just is. And if it just is without any negative, and it could not in any way be better, then it is simply wholly perfect.

Meanwhile no matter how privileged your life is, if you view things as "good" and "bad", then your life will have suffering and imperfection. Your complaints may boil down to first-world problems and may be unwarranted, but as long as you still make such value judgments then you will be suffering due to the perceived imperfection of the things around you.

The symbolism of the whole is thus this:

Humanity has a non-materialistic side and a materialistic side. Through attachment to the materialistic side, humans come to see the world in terms of "good" and "bad", which causes humans to fail to comprehend the world as a perfect paradise and to instead come to view the world as containing bad, and being imperfect, and thus suffering.

There's more symbolism in the tale that could be dissected at length, but that's the gist of it.

 

[Audie]

So there is no symbolic truth because it's not scientifically factual? Could the author(s) have been trying to express how they viewed their spiritual states as human beings through these made-up characters?

Symbolic truth. As opposed to like, true truth?
I dunno what symbolic truth is.

In the event, Genesis, like pretty much all of t he
bible, is subject to the same interpretation as
metaphor, symbol.

And as such, is found to say pretty much whatever
whoever wants to decide that it says.

That may be where the "truth" mainly lies,
in what it reveals of the reader.

 

[sealchan]

The first couple chapters of the book of Genesis describe the Fall of man from paradise, a state of unity and eternal life with God, to a state of separation, pain, loss, suffering, and death. While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless? Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

I believe these stories are based on objective psychological realities for two reasons:

• The motifs in these stories can be found in other sacred literature from which they may have been borrowed (or possibly borrowed from)
• I have seen two dreams which have patterned themselves around the same motifs as in these stories

The first argument is, perhaps, one based on the idea that the persistence of myth is due to their universal appeal across individuals and cultures. Something about this story carries weight and value in the human psyche. In terms of generations, it is a science born of a popularity contest. The meme-ishness of myth is, perhaps, reflective of something we will want to understand about the psyche.

The second argument is based on the notion that this weight and value are further demonstrated by the stories which emerge from dreams. It is likely that dreams have influenced myth as they are our universal nightly theaters. These inner visions come with great mystery and often a personal sense of meaning and import. Dreams feature a language which once known can be seen in all people's dreams. I have been able to make some sense of this language myself and it has given me the pleasure of making sense of my dreams and the dreams of others. Once the dream story makes it into the story-teller's art it gets further transformed moving away from an original dream inspiration perhaps diluting it...getting augmented with other dreams and stories...making it more potent. Getting the thumbs up from the audience, etc.

In my own study of this story I have come to the conclusion that this story describes the mystery of how knowledge, particularly moral knowledge, comes into existence within each of us. We are aware of reality but not aware until we make a choice even against our better's "recommendations" and come to realize, most dramatically, that we have chosen much more than we bargained for...or not what we thought. We make moral mistakes in partial naivete and learn "the hard way". I also think that God clearly knew this would happen and that putting the forbidden fruit in the middle of a garden of limited extent is the equivalent of painting a bullseye on that outcome. It would have gone better for Adam and Eve if God hadn't mentioned the tree (in the center of the garden) to those two who were likely the equivalent of moral two year olds.

The story-tellers ascribe all this to God for God, in Chapter One, is undeniably the author of all of this (i.e. the author of Creation). This is not to criticize God for this state of things but merely to underscore the universal nature of this experience of our own knowledge, especially moral knowledge, in growth. Emerging from such variably tragic mistakes gives us a sense of having been expelled from some previous paradise...if only we hadn't disobeyed...

The message of guilt which has developed around this has in many ways been used to deliver emotional abuse in the name of piety and humility. While it may help us to realize how small we are, we don't need to also be told how corrupt we are for in the end that may serve to be a tool of political power and a message of powerlessness against maintaining a sense of our own moral integrity. If we can't be good, why try?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The first symbol to look at is the symbolism of male and female. This symbolism is typical in the ancient age of the male symbolic of the heavenly and the female symbolic of the earthly. That is why in many early polytheistic religions you have often have male gods governing the sky, and female goddesses governing the earth. Compare to Dievs/Mara in Baltic Paganism or Uranus/Gaia in Hellenic stories.

I'm not sure how widespread that is outside of Indo-European religion. Don't want to generalize too much.

 

[sealchan]

most people see Genesis as an explanation for why we die

I believe we were never meant to live forever....in flesh

and the ideal living conditions of Adam and Eve were a petri dish
having served it's purpose
it was dismantled

I think the story was written to directly counter the mythic notion of death as an essential part of life. Much of Genesis does the work of surgically removing, suppressing and denying the role of the Goddess in myth. It was a bold move by the authors. There is even some humor in how they went about it although the centuries of mysogyny that has found its justification in this scripture makes that difficult to appreciate.

 

[Audie]

I know. Which is a bit disconcerting we have "fallen" so far from a symbolic reality into the land of one-dimensional so-called "facts".

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set.​

.

I dont see this fall from "symbolic reality",
perhaps as I've no idea what "symbolic reality"
is supposed to mean.

I do see humankind on an upward path from
superstition, slow and uneven as it has been.
Any writer championing religion is one of the intellectual
regressives in this regard, and his opinions
suffer accordingly.

His characterization of science as being about
the pedantic and prosaic is clearly that of someone who
has not been exposed to, say, a geologist /
paleontologist, archaeologist, theoretical physicist,
or any of several others. Basically, someone who
has opinions about science, but, no knowledge.

Sure; some people, some occupations such as say
accounting or applied physics are not much for
beauty and poetry.

It would be worthwhile to notice how many mathmaticians
are also musicians, that many scientists are also
artists.

The guy is basically just making things up.

 

[Audie]

I think the story was written to directly counter the mythic notion of death as an essential part of life. .

Death is no myth.
"God will keep you alive forever" is the myth.

 

[sealchan]

Hmmm....I guess I see it as another type of moving story. One with a bit more depth. Still fiction.

/E: Good literature always deals with fundamental aspects of the human condition.

So you see literature as communicative of the fundamental (universal) aspects of the human condition. What if we read the world's sacred literature with this in mind? Would it not, thereby, demonstrate its great value to our understanding of ourselves?

 

[Sanzbir]

I'm not sure how widespread that is outside of Indo-European religion. Don't want to generalize too much.

The male/female symbolism is also present in the Babylonian religion, which is fairly important as the story of Eden seems to date back to the age of the Babylonian captivity. It is symbolism the Jews would have been familiar with at the time that the story seems to have come about, at the very least, as they would have been in contact with the Babylonians as well as the Indo-European Persians.

 

[Baladas]

I don't believe that humans have ever necessarily lived in any kind of "purer" state in connection with the gods or any other underlying spiritual reality and then lost that connection, so no. I will give you that the buzz of city life makes it harder for many to feel connected with nature.

 

[Windwalker]

The first symbol to look at is the symbolism of male and female. This symbolism is typical in the ancient age of the male symbolic of the heavenly and the female symbolic of the earthly. That is why in many early polytheistic religions you have often have male gods governing the sky, and female goddesses governing the earth. Compare to Dievs/Mara in Baltic Paganism or Uranus/Gaia in Hellenic stories.

The dichotomy of male Adam and female Eve then could be understood as being representative of the spiritual or non-materialistic side of mankind and its material side. This would explain why Eve is tempted first and in turn tempts Adam, as the materialistic side of a person is what first is tempted, and from the temptations of that side, the non-materialistic side may follow the materialistic side.

Eden is said to be perfect. Eating the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil" causes one to leave Eden, and also causes one to see things in terms of good and bad, and causes Adam and Eve suffering when they ascribe "bad" to their state of nudity after adopting this "knowledge". After they eat the fruit / adopt the "knowledge", they are cast out of Eden and no longer live in a perfect world.

Although it is of note that even before they are cast out, Eden itself becomes imperfect in their eyes, no longer a paradise. While before the fruit, they were content with the nudity of Eden, after the fruit, they clearly viewed this as a flaw in the state of their lifestyle.

It's important to note that if you were to not view anything in the world in terms of "good" and "bad" you would view the world as "perfect", since in your eyes it contained no bad whatsoever. No matter how hellish the world you live in is, if you don't view it through a lens of good and bad, it just is. And if it just is without any negative, and it could not in any way be better, then it is simply wholly perfect.

Meanwhile no matter how privileged your life is, if you view things as "good" and "bad", then your life will have suffering and imperfection. Your complaints may boil down to first-world problems and may be unwarranted, but as long as you still make such value judgments then you will be suffering due to the perceived imperfection of the things around you.

The symbolism of the whole is thus this:

Humanity has a non-materialistic side and a materialistic side. Through attachment to the materialistic side, humans come to see the world in terms of "good" and "bad", which causes humans to fail to comprehend the world as a perfect paradise and to instead come to view the world as containing bad, and being imperfect, and thus suffering.

There's more symbolism in the tale that could be dissected at length, but that's the gist of it.

This is great. I never looked at it in these terms of Adam and Eve representing the divine feminine and masculine, like Yin and Yang, Heaven and Earth. This dividing of the spiritual and the material into two separate things creates the basic world of duality, and the unresolved tension between the two. You have those on the right hand path of ascension trying to leave the material form to the transcendent in order to find resolve, and those on the left hand path of descension (science and rationalism) into the world of form, or the material to find resolution to this. Both are seeking a return to source, via opposite forms of denial of the other path. This is why I find tantric paths, to seek the divine in and through form to bring the two together again in nondual unity the most effective, with one foot in heaven and one foot on earth. As Sri Aurobindo put it,

"The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya."​

A lot to process in this line of thinking. I'd enjoy hearing more of your thoughts on this sometime.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

nay

you can believe anything you want
doesn't mean it's true

Truth not fact. Though some people consider their truth fact. Example. Rebirth is fact. But not all believe in this fact. But it's my truth even if you guys don't accept it. Truth keeps it personal. God isn't a fact but to many it's their truth so...who can argue.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That's interesting. Do you understand symbolism in the sense of a "mere symbol", meaning that it has no real value because it's not factual? For me, to recognize it as symbolic evelvates its value, as symbols are in fact more powerful and more meaningful than facts. To make Genesis "facts" reduces its value symbolically. It turns God into a Yeti, as I like to say.

A symbol is merely something that stands in for something else. So, what I assumed (incorrectly, obviously) was that stating genesis is a "symbol" would intrinsically mean that it wasn't factual, and that one might admit this in order to distance oneself from the mystical/magical/miraculous nature of the story, cast it as just a stand-in for a more true-to-life occurrence, bring it "down to Earth" and make it a little more reality-based.

Of course a symbol can have perceived value. But it is only perceived, not intrinsic, and not objective in any way. A swastika, for example, is just a series of interconnected rectangles in the start of a spiral. It is only more if we (as the perceiver) allow it to be.

It is of course a symbolic term which makes it open ended. To define God, or the Divine, just makes it an object of belief, like a Yeti, or an ET, or a UFO or something. Perceived "facts" limit the possible, placing boundaries around itself. Symbolic truths on the other hand inspire the possible to open into realization.

I don't know if I grasp what you mean by "symbolic truth." Can you give me an example of something you think I might feel is "true" but is, at its core, a symbol?

Not at all. Those that view the Divine as an extension of the egos, are not looking at the divine at all. To say, "I have God within, therefore I'm better than you," shows that person is speaking strictly from their own weak ego. The expression of God within is always Grace and humility. It recognizes God in all of creation, of which you are part of.

I don't see it. What I feel is that positioning divinity in any way as a part of the universe is the ego in action. Because it necessarily involves assigning meaning to things that involve you. It necessarily pushes one in the direction of expecting meaning and purpose to things that involve oneself, and even feeling that you may be deserving of such meaning and purpose. Or it may guide you to a belief that you can't do without such meaning, because you would feel it reduces your worth. I would argue that a desire not to lose worth is the ego at work.

If they "consider themselves" that, then that is the ego. It's an image of the egos projected on the divine curtain of reality in their own self-created show about themselves in which they are the star. To realize the divine state in themselves, is exactly as both you and I have say, a "position of grace and humility".

But to consider the universe of divine origin, and therefore to recognize yourself as being of that same origin is to, again, assign yourself divine meaning and purpose, and brings forth the idea that this divine "thing" desired your presence in the universe in some way. How can that not have effect on the ego, I ask you?

So it is exactly that realization of what is in us, that Grace and humility, that the egoic sense of self experiences as "fallen from", in that it can't quit looking into the mirror and asking who am I in this body? It senses there is something more than the narcissistic self, some higher "me" that is beyond all that, and which is in fleeting moments of life glimpsed and realized which is then symbolically held as the Ultimate Truth of ourselves and all that is.

I believe that the truth is that life strives, and in its striving, has produced a multi-cellular colony that needs a "captain" to steer the biological vessel. I believe our awareness is a "job" that is farmed out to a host of neurons and memory cells - to react to stimulus produced by other shipmates (cells of the eyes, ears, nose, touch-sensing nerves) and keep the rest of the colony out of harm's way. From this perspective, the "I" we experience is not very much at all. We aren't responsible for 99% of the goings on within our bodies, and yet many believe that what they consider "themselves" (consciousness, personality, likes and dislikes, feelings, beliefs) is the whole. As a "consciousness" we are each afforded the unique privilege of being the director of our respective colonies. And in the end, what is the "I" will cease to be entirely.

 

[Audie]

I don't believe that humans have ever necessarily lived in any kind of "purer" state in connection with the gods or any other underlying spiritual reality and then lost that connection, so no. I will give you that the buzz of city life makes it harder for many to feel connected with nature.

The characterization of the lives of ancient
humankind as "nasty, brutish, and short"
sounds about right.

Anyone who thinks things were great at
some time in the past really should have
access to a time machine, and a one way
ticket.

There are a whole lot of "connections to nature"
that few of us would like very much.