Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel

[SeekerSA]

Greetings saints.

The HS placed this on my heart to share. It is a new revelation to me and I discovered much this morning exploring various concepts.

I hope this blesses you as it blessed me. Sorry it is so long but take some time out to read it.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of both of them were opened. And they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made girdles[2290] for themselves.

H2290
חגרה חגורה חגר חגור
chăgôr chăgôr chăgôrâh chăgôrâh
(1,2) khag-ore', (3,4) khag-o-raw'
From H2296; a belt (for the waist): - apron, armour, gird (-le).

The HS prompted me to look up this word girdle. In the OT it is translated as Apron, Armor or Girdle. In every occurrence in the NT it is translated to bury or buried.

The traditional view of this verse was their nakedness was apparent because of the sin and from this comes the incorrect interpretation that we are born of sin, our nakedness is sin etc.

Now I do not believe that Adam and Eve were not aware of the genital differences as they were naked in the literal sense. However, the nakedness referred to here, naked means without the covering of God.

The first reaction was to make alternate coverings (girdles/aprons) which essentially buried their nakedness from God. (This is a new revelation to me and I am writing as the HS gives unction)

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God in the middle of the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And Jehovah God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?

I often wondered why God would need to ask a question like this, sounds kind of silly as God is All Knowing. Yet we see here God calling out to Adam, much like the drawing of the HS today.

Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I am naked, and I hid myself.

Adam confesses he has lost his covering and feels unworthy to commune with God and the “hid myself” here was a burial/separation of sorts taken by Adam.

Gen 3:11 And He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you that you should not eat?

God challenges the mindset of Adam by asking him, “Who told you?” Here again we see that although God already knew, He challenges Adam’s mindset. God had said the tree of K&E was forbidden and knew that after partaking, the accuser would come and tell Adam he is unworthy. That accuser is the knowledge of good and evil.
At this point Adam had become like God and knew he had willfully disobeyed God, his creator. Then God asks the rhetorical question.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;[2032] in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

H2032
הריון הרון
hêrôn hêrâyôn
hay-rone', hay-raw-yone'
From H2029; pregnancy: - conception.
Conception here seems to deal with child bearing and irrationally has been duped to the pain woman go though at childbirth and subservience to man.

Conception here in the OT is translated consistently yet as soon as the word appears in the NT, we see it translated to mean Heavenly or Celestial things. This is odd as it makes no mention of such in the Strong's. That said, there is obviously something special about the conception of women relating to heavenly things.

The desire towards the husband IMO is the part God placed in woman for the sanctity of marriage. Man has an instinctive urge to sow his seed anywhere, much like other mammals, woman have another take on this entirely and seek the commitment of the husband to the rearing of the off-spring.

Sorrow only gets 3 mentions in the OT.
H6093
עצּבון
‛itstsâbôn
its-tsaw-bone'
From H6087; worrisomeness, that is, labor or pain: - sorrow, toil.

Gen 3:17 And to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it! The ground is cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat of it all the days of your life.
Here God curses the ground, not Adam or Eve.

Gen 3:18 It shall also bring forth thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 And for Adam and his wife Jehovah God made coats of skins, and clothed them

Notice here God’s 1st part of redemption in re-clothing/covering of man.

Gen 3:22 And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,
Gen 3:23 therefore Jehovah God sent him out from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken.
Gen 3:24 And He drove out the man. And He placed cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

As we all know, the Tree of Life is symbolic of Jesus. I have no revelation of these last 3 verses but what stands out is the “..from which he had been taken”

Now skip on to the story of the tower of Babel.

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language and of
one speech.
Gen 11:2 And it happened, as they traveled from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar. And they lived there.
Gen 11:3 And they said to one another, Come, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar.
Gen 11:4 And they said, Come, let us build us a city and a tower, and its top in the heavens. And let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered upon the face of the whole earth.
Gen 11:5 And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of Adam had built.
Gen 11:6 And Jehovah said, Behold! The people is one and they all have one language. And this they begin to do. And now nothing which they have imagined to do will be restrained from them.
Gen 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they cannot understand one another's speech.
Gen 11:8 So Jehovah scattered them abroad from that place upon the face of all the earth. And they quit building the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore the name of it is called Babel; because Jehovah confused the language of all the earth there. And from there Jehovah scattered them abroad on the face of all the earth.

Traditionally this story has been interpreted as the will of man.

Here I see a similarity between these two verses
Gen 3:22 And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,

Gen 11:6 And Jehovah said, Behold! The people is one and they all have one language. And this they begin to do. And now nothing which they have imagined to do will be restrained from them.

What I see from these two accounts is the desire of God to have a personal relationship with each one of us. In the fall in the garden, this was taken away and once again, in the tower of Babel which I see as symbolic of mass churches denominations etc. we see God’s hand in causing divisions today. But the process is ongoing as many want the organized plan, set of rules, sense of belonging etc.

Yet we all belong to God. It is our sole purpose in life to discover this truth and to enter into a personal relationship with Him. Maybe this is why Jesus stated that there is only one teacher, only one was good and this is God.

Jesus was the first of many sons, we as adopted sons can see Jesus as our brother and give the same reverence that Jesus gave to God our Father.

The kingdom of God is so simple and yet it is hidden in plain sight. I pray that God will remove the veil and scales that prevent some from seeing this.

Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

Blessings In Christ

[SeekerSA]

bump

I was looking for something else and this came up and I had no comments

[Someday]

Seeker,

I saw this post when I was but a lurker here. There is truly a connection between these two tales, as with many of the Genesis stories. The Garden of Eden is such a short parable, but yet, it has one of the deepest and clarifying messages of the entire Bible. More often than not, when I am reading the rest of the Bible, I find myself referring back to this one story. It is central. If we read the rest with this story in mind, it really helps clear the mud in our streams of thought.

Blessings

[kmisho]

If I replied that Genesis is nothing but the Jewish parallel of the Prometheus myth and that the Tower of Babel story was originally intended as little more than an explanation of the origin of the variety of ethnicities, cultures and languages and that you're reading WAY too much into it...

[Someday]

Kmisho,

I definitely see why comparative mythology gets the idea that the Garden story seems like a parallel to the Prometheus myth, but I don't believe it really is.
Prometheus is the bringer of fire, a benefit to mankind. He is seen bringing a thing to mankind that they had lost access too, and that set him at odds with the Gods. He is a hero.
Satan on the other hand, did not bring mankind anything beneficial. Some say he brought knowledge, but that's incomplete. He brought nothing that Adam did not already have access to, and this knowledge was a very specific kind of knowledge. Knowledge of good and evil. This brought death, and in no way did the writer hint that this was beneficial. Quite the opposite.
In the Prometheus myth, man is already separated from the Gods, and were lacking something. In the Garden story, Adam lacked nothing, and had full communion with God. Adam already had knowledge, and he also had the duty of helping God oversee and rule over what God had created. The fall was when mankind lost this exalted position, and became subjected to creation. The only parallel is that Satan was a trickster. But he did not trick the Gods, he tricked Adam. Satan is no hero, but the enemy of mankind.
I believe one of the main reasons that comparative mythology maintains the belief in this parallel is because of the Lucifer myth. Lucifer is thought to be Satan, but I don't believe that is even remotely true. Lucifer is a Latin translation of the term helel (day star), a name that was not meant as a proper name in the original languages that Jerome was translating. The only time lucifer is used is in a passage in Isaiah when speaking about an earthly king of Babylon. Helel was an honorary title of this king, and lucifer is a translation of that title. The King James versions did not translate lucifer, but instead treated it as a proper noun. Dante and Milton gave rise to to the late medieval/modern Christian notion that Lucifer is a fallen angel who is Satan, the embodiment of evil and an enemy of God. Satan is not God's enemy, as much as he is ours. Modern Jews do not equate this helel with Satan at all, nor is there any record of them ever equating the two. Without the lucifer myths, the parallels fade.

The main idea behind the Tower of Babel story is not that languages were confused, and ethnicity arose, although that is the final outcome. The main idea here is that mankind was trying to become like God. This is what caused the fall in the Garden as well. It is another way of dealing with the same subject, the created trying to become equal with the creator. This time the story is not dealing with just two, but with all mankind. There is also evidence of one of the many east to west themes. Man was moving from the east toward the west in this story. The Cherub stands on the eastern side of the Garden of Eden, preventing man's access. Any time men are said to be moving west in the OT, they also seem to be moving toward God. These are not literal directions, but spiritual ones. Mankind in this story was getting closer to God, but foiled themselves by trying to become God.
This is what parable is. Reading more into the story than is written in plain sight. These ideas are developed by examining the parallels in all of the stories, and seeing the similarities in order to learn a deeper meaning. Most of the stories do not on their own, read separately, have a deep meaning. It is when they are collected and seen as part of one larger theme that they take on life. Those were the aha moments I experienced when I was an agnostic and started to see how deeply connected all of this is. Before that, these were just nice little stories that had very little meaning except as you said, explain the existence of different languages, etc. Now it reads very differently to me.

Someday

[God_Chaser_007]

Hi Seeker,

Seeker: Now I do not believe that Adam and Eve were not aware of the genital differences as they were naked in the literal sense. However, the nakedness referred to here, naked means without the covering of God.

Just something I was looking at last December: When you look at names in the bible - names mean certain characteristics or they carry a certain nature. Before anyone partook of the tree of K.o.G&E the woman had no name. She was just woman. Once they (Adam & the woman) ate and they sinned Adam then changed the womans name to Eve meaning "Mother of all living". When you said they were no longer covered by God I see that Eve now birthed a new race, a race who were no longer covered by God, no longer had His nature, His character (We were made in His image). We no longer were covered by His covering ....

Just my thoughts anyway ...

Blessings
GC

[kmisho]

Originally Posted by Someday

Kmisho,

I definitely see why comparative mythology gets the idea that the Garden story seems like a parallel to the Prometheus myth, but I don't believe it really is.
Prometheus is the bringer of fire, a benefit to mankind. He is seen bringing a thing to mankind that they had lost access too, and that set him at odds with the Gods. He is a hero.
Satan on the other hand, did not bring mankind anything beneficial. Some say he brought knowledge, but that's incomplete. He brought nothing that Adam did not already have access to, and this knowledge was a very specific kind of knowledge. Knowledge of good and evil. This brought death, and in no way did the writer hint that this was beneficial. Quite the opposite.
In the Prometheus myth, man is already separated from the Gods, and were lacking something. In the Garden story, Adam lacked nothing, and had full communion with God. Adam already had knowledge, and he also had the duty of helping God oversee and rule over what God had created. The fall was when mankind lost this exalted position, and became subjected to creation. The only parallel is that Satan was a trickster. But he did not trick the Gods, he tricked Adam. Satan is no hero, but the enemy of mankind.
I believe one of the main reasons that comparative mythology maintains the belief in this parallel is because of the Lucifer myth. Lucifer is thought to be Satan, but I don't believe that is even remotely true. Lucifer is a Latin translation of the term helel (day star), a name that was not meant as a proper name in the original languages that Jerome was translating. The only time lucifer is used is in a passage in Isaiah when speaking about an earthly king of Babylon. Helel was an honorary title of this king, and lucifer is a translation of that title. The King James versions did not translate lucifer, but instead treated it as a proper noun. Dante and Milton gave rise to to the late medieval/modern Christian notion that Lucifer is a fallen angel who is Satan, the embodiment of evil and an enemy of God. Satan is not God's enemy, as much as he is ours. Modern Jews do not equate this helel with Satan at all, nor is there any record of them ever equating the two. Without the lucifer myths, the parallels fade.

The main idea behind the Tower of Babel story is not that languages were confused, and ethnicity arose, although that is the final outcome. The main idea here is that mankind was trying to become like God. This is what caused the fall in the Garden as well. It is another way of dealing with the same subject, the created trying to become equal with the creator. This time the story is not dealing with just two, but with all mankind. There is also evidence of one of the many east to west themes. Man was moving from the east toward the west in this story. The Cherub stands on the eastern side of the Garden of Eden, preventing man's access. Any time men are said to be moving west in the OT, they also seem to be moving toward God. These are not literal directions, but spiritual ones. Mankind in this story was getting closer to God, but foiled themselves by trying to become God.
This is what parable is. Reading more into the story than is written in plain sight. These ideas are developed by examining the parallels in all of the stories, and seeing the similarities in order to learn a deeper meaning. Most of the stories do not on their own, read separately, have a deep meaning. It is when they are collected and seen as part of one larger theme that they take on life. Those were the aha moments I experienced when I was an agnostic and started to see how deeply connected all of this is. Before that, these were just nice little stories that had very little meaning except as you said, explain the existence of different languages, etc. Now it reads very differently to me.

Someday

I predictably disagree on both counts. Prometheus was the bringer of fire, by stealing it from the gods. The parallel to stealing knowledge, through fruit-eating, and thus becoming like god is very close.

Of course a believer would place the emphasis on the 'trying to reach god' part. I submit that this part is secondary, the moral of the story. The reason for the story, the aspect of creation that the story was intended to answer, was the origin of ethnicities and languages.

Note that many of the genesis parables operate in this manner. A real phenomenon that cried out for explanation is explained, then a moral of the story is attached: pain in childbrith, rainbows, wearing clothes, etc.

[Someday]

Of course a believer would place the emphasis on the 'trying to reach god' part

Perhaps this explains one reason believers and non believers come to such different conclusions when reading these parables.

In my own experience, I wasn't a believer when the "Aha!" moments started to come to me. My belief followed later.

I submit that this part is secondary, the moral of the story. The reason for the story, the aspect of creation that the story was intended to answer, was the origin of ethnicities and languages.

Would it be fair to apply this same principle when comparing the Garden parable with the Prometheus myth? Do you feel they address the same aspects of creation?

blessings

[kmisho]

Originally Posted by Someday

Perhaps this explains one reason believers and non believers come to such different conclusions when reading these parables.

In my own experience, I wasn't a believer when the "Aha!" moments started to come to me. My belief followed later.


Would it be fair to apply this same principle when comparing the Garden parable with the Prometheus myth? Do you feel they address the same aspects of creation?

blessings

I find interest in the pentateuch almost in inverse proportion to the extent I think they are historical. As long as I can take them as morality plays (regardless of whether I agree with the moral itself) they make sense to me as works of human artistry tied to a particular place and time. If I try to take them as real events in any way, I'm stuck with talking snakes and 900 year old people and that's just not going to happen.

From the two stories, I think the metaphorical theft of fire and eating the apple in particular are talking about virtually the same thing, human self-awareness, though they use slightly different symbols for the same thing.

The Hebrew version uses the technological invention of clothing and speculates that the motivation was shame, itself an emotional indicator of self-awareness. But I think the real motivation of this invention was probably the ice age through which cavemen lived.

The Greek version uses the technological invention of fire, which interestingly enough very possibly has the same derivation as clothing: to keep warm.

Both fables liken this to theft from god(s).

What important question were both of these stories really trying to answer? Not the origin of clothing, nor of fire, nor of shame, nor even of self-conscioness. The question was why are we different from all the other animals? These ancient peoples answered the question by saying that we rose above the animals by stealing something miraculous. Self-consciousness still retains a mirculous slipperiness and many questions about it remain to be answered.

Since these stories first appeared 1000's of years ago, we now have a different answer to the original question: We are not fundamentally different from all the other animals, for we are animals. This answer to me is wholly satsifying because it gives us context, embeds and intertwines us in this world that at times we seem so separate from and even hostile to us. But many people still find other ramifications of this deduction too shocking to allow.

Both of these ancient fables answer a question that was not legitimate to begin with, classic examples of ad hoc reasoning. They answered a question that did not need to be asked with an answer that raises questions even more difficult than the one originally asked. This assessment could be considered an insult to a modern mind, but I certainly don't hold it against them. We have the distinct advantage of a few thousand years of accumulated knowledge.

Their effort was admirable and tells me that we were much more like them than different from them. They wanted to know why they lived in societies and cultures, why they felt for each other, why they feared death and cared for the dead and grieved, why they alone had language, math, art, why they alone built things to wear, to live in, to till fields. Unfortunately their answers were simply wrong, but they didn't have much to go on at the time.

My way of looking at ancient stories says a lot about the difference between me and many believers. You have to admit, even if you disagree with me, that my method flawlessly integrates all of history into a cosmic and plausible whole.