It's that time of year again: apple season. Here in the Big Apple, farmer's markets are filled with them. The crisp color fruit augurs fall, holiday meals, American pies and the Garden of Eden. It's one of the most persistent elements of the story: Adam, Eve, apple, snake. At least, it is for most people. Having spent the last several years writing a book about people who search for the Garden of Eden on earth, I am a little sensitive about the topic of apples.
You see, the Bible never says "apple," just "fruit." And if you imagine that the Genesis stories came to us from the Middle East, as most scholars and believers would, well, there are no apples growing in the deserts of southern Iraq. The apple was first cultivated in Kazakhstan, thousands of miles away.
No one really knows how the apple got caught up with original sin. Probably it happened in the Renaissance, when lots of elements of the Bible were becoming Latinized. Apparently the Latin words for apple and for evil are similar. Or it could be a reference to the Greek myth of the golden apples. But however you cut it, the apple is a late addition, and anyone harking back to an authentic version of the story must toss the apple out.
That's what most of the Eden-seekers in my book did. They all started with the same verses of the Bible, and all ended up at different places, many centered in the Middle East, but also as far afield as Mongolia, Ohio and the North Pole. They all had different ideas for the species of the Tree of Knowledge, including the sequoia, the banana and the grapefruit. Fair enough.
But then, in August, my book came out, and I started to hear from readers. A lot of readers. With a lot of opinions on where the Garden of Eden was, or is, depending on your point of view.
An archaeologist insisted Eden was in Turkey, of course -- he found it years ago. Another reader sent fascinating videos of his expedition looking for Eden along the Mediterranean Sea floor between Cyprus and Syria. I was sent an academic analysis of the verses in question using "flood geneology" to prove that we could not prove where Eden was. A radio caller made a convincing case for Eden in the Bermuda Triangle -- since, according to the doctrine of original sin, we should not be able to get back in. Another proposed a synthesis of biology, chemistry and the Bible that would place Eden on a specific mountain in Turkey. (That makes two votes for Turkey!) A lovely woman in Half Moon Bay, Calif., believes that the garden starts from seeds of love in the heart. A teacher from Massachusetts wrote a tribute to his beloved summer camp on Lake Champlain, an Eden of sorts.
The Garden of Eden seemed to be an infinitely renewable idea, emblematic both of loss and eternal optimism of return. So I was surprised by something a Catholic theologian said on another radio program, after hearing tales of the quirky historical characters in the book. He said that "all religious people" know that you can't get back to Eden, can't un-eat the forbidden fruit and to do attempt to do so is a sin. So the search for the Garden of Eden is not a religious search at all, but a secular one; more about the Enlightenment hunger for knowledge than about faith. I wouldn't presume to say what all religious people know, but I can tell you that many of those historical Eden-seekers -- who were Methodist theologians, Baptist preachers, and Anglican deacons -- would disagree.
In fact, I think that characterization is only true to the extent that we equate "religion" with "certainty." And I think many of us would object to that characterization. I know I would. (Or, should I say, I'm pretty sure I would?) I have learned that many of us are seekers, unwilling to settle for one authoritative reading of the Bible, believing that the text is too sacred for that. In short, people for whom the search for the perfect paradise is more the point than the finding of it.
I happen to find the abundant variety of interpretations not disheartening, but liberating. And for that reading of the Garden of Eden, I've come back around to the apple. For me, it's actually the perfect fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It grows almost everywhere, as knowledge should; there are 7,500 varieties of cultivated apples. It is vast: Scientists recently mapped the genome of a Gala apple, and it had more chromosomes than any other known plant, more possible variations even than the human genome.
And the apple is endlessly changeable. It's known biologically as an "extreme heterozygote," which means that even when you plant the seed from, say, a Granny Smith, the tree that grows will express itself completely differently. To create a specific strain of apple, each individual tree must have a piece of the desired type grafted onto it. Much like faith, you never know what you're going to plant. Sow the same seed many times, as with the same verse of Genesis, and you'll come up with as many variations. You have to go tree by tree.
So this fall, as I fill my shopping bags with Braeburns, Fujis and McIntoshes -- not to mention Hampshires, Hawaiis and Herefords -- I will try to use the occasion to celebrate the varieties of religious experience, and the continuing availability of the "forbidden" fruit.
Follow Brook Wilensky-Lanford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/modmyth
Paradise Lust - By Brook Wilensky-Lanford - Book Review ...
Forbidden fruit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do these mysterious stones mark the site of the Garden of Eden ...
dan: You say your responses strongly demonstrate that no error was made. It's clearly demonstrable that isn't correct: G-d said to Adam, "Don't eat this fruit or you will die on that day."
Adam ate the fruit. Not only didn't Adam die that day, he lived for hundreds of years.
You've offered several possibilities - "spiritual death", "eventual death", "default death by withholding the antidote", etc. All of these are just another way of saying G-d gets a mulligan. I'm not arguing your alternatives, I'm saying they ARE the mulligan. It doesn't count as "consistent" if we have to change the meaning to make it consistent.
What G-d said/predicted/threatened was false. You keep insisting that G-d can't have lied or forgot, because G-d is just and omniscient. I'm saying G-d either is unjust or not omniscient. The details of the story favor my statement, and they directly contradict your statement.
dan: If that's the case, if until now Adam was unaware of "death", then where's the threat? If G-d meant "eventually you'll die", that wouldn't carry a threat unless Adam knew "die". If this is the case, then the focus shifts back from timing to penalty.
HTP: "I humbly and respectfulÂly submit that the Bible appears to suggest that (a) God confronted Adam with direct regard to eating the fruit as well as to having followed the suggestion by Eve rather than the directive of God"
dan: Not the law that G-d laid out; not the penalty that G-d laid out.
HTP: "and that (b) Adam was punished for said violations by God’s causing Adam’s substance-ÂprocuremenÂt process to be more labor-inteÂnsive."
dan: See above.
HTP: "Regarding the vicarious atonement model, that issue appears to address the terms of relationshÂip with God. I humbly and respectfulÂly refer to God all questions regarding relationshÂip with God (James 1:5-8)."
dan: Thank you. I'm comfortable with my relationship with G-d, in large part because I don't agree with the substitutionary model of atonement. :)
Is it possible for man to have a primitive understanding about nature and still write a sophisticated allegory? Or, do you think man's writing style would also be reflective of his understanding about his surrounding world?
Yes, absolutely. Their understanding of nature was primitive because they lacked the tools of modern science by which our current understanding is informed, but they were not dummies. In basic intelligence they were in all likelihood equal to people today, maybe even superior, because back then you literally had to live by your wits.
allowed to return to be a metaphor for our time of perfect innocence, early childhood? Is it
not at least possible that the fall from grace is our unconscious way of accepting the inevitable journey of maturation? The embellishments of the symbols make sense when viewed
form a mythic perspective.
Yes, Jesus did die on the cross for our "sins". However, His sacrifice was not to do away with the suffering or sins of the immediate world past or present. His sacrifice was for the future world after His return to gather the dead and the living who believe in Him.
If His death were to have been an immediate changing of all things...then, you or I would have never been born. These things still exist because Christ has not returned yet.
Only God knows when the appointed time for Christ to return will be. And, the Scriptures tell us that not even the Angels in Heaven know the appointed time. We do know, however, that His return will be like a thief in the night which means nobody will be expecting it when it happens.
I fear that your essentially literal interpretation of scripture (inferred from reading your post) is causing a fundamental - and, quite naturally, fundamentally UNCONSCIOUS - disconnect between you and your purported 'uncle'.
Orthodox believers generally take a 'literal-unless-proven-otherwise' approach to the Bible. I find that the text is littered with clues that give one REASON to believe that it has always ultimately been intended for careful readers to approach it from an inverse perspective: 'figurative-unless-proven-otherwise'.
Unlike MATERIAL values, which most certainly are expressed literally, 'SPIRITUAL' values are simply incapable of being expressed in LITERAL terms. Of course, until and unless one breaks free of our shared literal-minded default perspective, this assertion likely registers as so much nonsense (which in actuality is not entirely untrue, as 'spiritual' values are, by their very SUPERnature, quite literally non-SENSE-ible - if you grok my meaning).
Not sure how I managed to misplace my reply to your comment. I accidentally attached it to my original post instead of yours (see below).
As we develop in our early formative years, all of us are naturally conditioned by our senses (in combination with the acquisition of verbal language) to unwittingly adopt a relatively literal-minded perspective without ever consciously thinking of it AS being a relatively literal-minded perspective. That is to say we are perfectly blind to this development; we simply take it for granted as simply seeing things as they are. In this case, our default literal-minded perspective insidiously asserts itself as an unconscious form of FUNDAMENTALISM.
And so far as we are concerned with the relatively objective MATERIAL world, this doesn't present a problem. However, this literal-minded perspective proves to be unimaginably problematic when attempting to apply it to the relatively subjective SPIRITUAL world.
Both orthodox [Christian] theists and atheists alike unwittingly adhere to this very same fundamentally literal-minded default perspective, occupying polar opposite positions on the same unacknowledged cognitive continuum.
As for your last point about speculating on the [actual/literal] fruit of Eden being a creative act, I would contend that the actual literal fruit that one believes it to be is entirely besides the point... IF one CREATIVELY approaches the story as an INTENDED allegory (in which case the ONLY consideration that matters is what the ambiguous fruit depicted in the story SERVES TO REPRESENT.
Peace,
AQ
I have always thought it of the utmost importance to let God be God. There a lot of things, even by very devout ones, not understood by Christians concerning the Scripture. There are five judgements in the Scripture: 1.) one for Christians; 2.) one for non-believers; 3.) one for angels; 4.) one for Israel; 5.) and, self-judgement. There are two resurrections in the Scripture: 1.) one for Christians; 2.) one for non-believers.
Yes, Christians by the blood of Christ Jesus will automatically be saved, but that doesn't mean we will not be judged. Christians will stand before the Judgement Seat, and we will judged by Christ Jesus according to the works we have done in our body. It doesn't prevent or stop our eternal salvation, but it also lets us know that we are still accountable for our thoughts and actions.
The White Throne Judgement is for non-believers, and they will be judged according to their works. This simply means that God is Love and Just. There are many, many people who are living and who have died who are/were "good" people. God is also "fair". He knows this and takes it into account that they too merit Heaven. There will be many atheists, agnostics, non-believers saved because God knows their hearts even in their denial.
The judgement of Angels is for the angels who fell with satan. God will judge them and give them the opportunity for salvation.
The Scripture also tells us that the man who knows not love does not know God. We are commanded by Jesus Christ to "love" all men regardless of their beliefs. So, it is upon us, as Christians, to spread the Good Word not damnation.
I try very hard to live a righteous life, but I know there are many individuals, (i.e., atheists, agnostics, and non-believers), who probably are less "sinful" than myself. God knows this too.
There is only one sin which is not forgiven, and that one sin is blasphemy. If any man blasphemes the Holy Spirit that sin will not be forgiven by Jesus...so, the Scriptures say.
Jesus also tell us that there will be many who will cry out Lord, Lord who haven't done the Will of God and they will be judged with the non-believers. And, these same people will say to Him that they have done all of these things in His name...and, He states that He will not know them.
So, let's not be so quick to judge...that's God's job.
"started thinking of things and events as either right or wrong and good or evil. It seems clear that before about 10,000 BC the human animal just did not think in terms like that."
I'd say that not only did humans experience "right and wrong" long before that, but so did many other animals. If monkeys share and one monkey stiffs the other, monkey B goes bat shit. He knows what "wrong" is. He just doesn't consider the possibility of changing himself and monkey A so that wrong goes away. He's go no "should".