Garden of Eden
I have contemplated the concept-idea of a “Garden of Eden” for more than a few late nights. The metaphorical center of human beginnings, purity and perfection is an important product of Hebrew myth-making. The Garden is still an important element/idea in many, many movements and expressions that identify as Judeo-Christian.
Perfection reigns in the Garden of Eden, according to the texts (i.e., no Sin in humanity + no Sin in the world [nature]). Animals do not eat each other in the Garden of Eden. This is the inference in the text of Genesis 1:29-30, which says:
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
The animals that approach Adam to receive a name seem quite cordial to humanity and one another – most likely because Yahweh declared that the green plants were to be their food, not humans or one another. That part of the story can be found in Genesis 2:19-20, which says:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
Then the Fall occurs. Suddenly, the entire human race and all of creation is tainted with Sin – Sin with a capital “S.” Human beings begin killing each other; animals begin eating one another. It’s all quite a carnivorous, nasty mess, it seems. Everyone and everything becomes a flesh-eating predator. This violence, it seems, is one consequence of the fall.
So, with this very literalistic interpretation firmly in our grasp, I now present the reader with a wild question: “In the pre-fall Garden of Eden did the Zebra have stripes and did a lion have sharp teeth and a very short intestine designed for flushing out enormous amounts of cholesterol earned by swallowing a lot of flesh?”
Do you understand the question? Why would a zebra have stripes in the Garden of Eden if lions did not hunt them? Why would a lion have flesh shredding teeth and a digestive system tuned for carnivorous consumption if it did not tear and swallow flesh? This is so silly and obvious not many actually consider it, but do give it a moment’s thought, if you have a free moment to offer to thought. The above question may sound rediculous at first but it does matter and it holds much relevance for today’s theological and religious discussions.
Either nature is, as the biblical myth presents it, fallen and a consequent ‘thorn’ in the metaphorical ’side of God,’ and groans for his return, or it is a thing of incredible naturalistic adaptability and consequently pragmatic, as Darwinism suggests.
I know this is an over-simplified contrast, but the dichotomy is not my own; it is a product of the dual sided debate upon which I am focusing/founding this article. Personally, I side with the Darwinians/Naturalists and will continue to do so unless a Biblical literalist can actually choose one of the following and substantiate their choice: 1.) Lions in the pre-fall garden were toothless and today’s sharp teeth and carnivorous digestive systems are merely “EVOLVED” products of suddenly corrupted natural system which found its catalyst in the fall (Zebras had no stripes at all, due to the obvious lack of the need to hide from flesh eating predators); 2.) Pre-fall garden lions and zebras were originally created in the form in which they appear today – teeth, stripes, digestive systems, and all – in spite of their having absolutely no use for such things. This choice seems absurd, and is an opening to much more serious theological questions which threaten the whole concept of a pre-fall utopia, but I will make it available. 3.) Pre-fall garden lions and zebras were originally created in the form in which they appear today – teeth, stripes, digestive systems, and all – and instinctively made use of them to hunt and hide.
Would a literalist, in his or her attempt to salvage the myth of a pre-fall garden utopia (i.e., the myth of a world which is more perfect than the one existing right now at this very moment outside of your window), actually argue for evolution – or even a hyphenated version – and chose the first option? If so, the truth within the myth will have to be repositioned and the story will have to be reinterpreted for our own time. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Or, would a literalist choose the second option and smother/hide/spin the absurdity with ‘faith’ in a god who knowingly prepared the natural world into which we were placed for self-destruction (a self-destruction that exists in relation to the pre-fall utopian setting)?
Or, would a literalist chose the third option and totally gut their understanding of myth and work to create a new and more meaningful myth?
Lions and zebras may sound silly, but the question is a serious one. None of the above options are easy for the literalist who points to the past and future but never the present for examples of a model world, but a present choice must be made if we are going to draw authentic meaning from the well of our lives and existences.
A Quick Word Re: The Two Judeo-Christian Creation Stories
There are two creation stories in Genesis. This is basic, introductory, 1st year Bible College information, yet, a lot of people are not aware of it, or they just don’t want to discuss it for whatever reasons. In spite of all of that, it’s true; there are two creation stories in Genesis.
The First Creation Story is found in Genesis 1 – 2:3
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
The Second Creation Story is found in Genesis 2:4 – 25
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [f] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
There are important differences between the two creation accounts in Genesis. I’ll leave it up to you to find them. I’ll say this much: Those who like their women subordinate really focus on the second creation story. That should be enough impetus to push us all towards deeper investigation, study and understanding.
Related posts:
“Those who like their women subordinate really focus on the second creation story.”
Only in their ignorance…God is also a helper but no one would consider him subordinate to man, except in our most prideful moments. Woman was not “named” by Man until after the account of the Fall so the hierarchial mindset appears to be a result of sin…
Anyway, good thoughts. I don’t know what the answers are, but interesting stuff to gnaw on.
Hi, Jaime! Thanks for the comment. I do, however, have to point out that the Fall came after the two Creation Stories, and the “naming” of “woman,” not before.
But, was “woman” really a name?
Man is actually adamah (Adam)…not ish (taken out of man) so ishah (shall be called woman) could be considered less a name than a recognition of substance. Eve only became her name in 3:20.
Jaime, you are so right! I’m sorry! I thought you were talking about Adam’s “helper” being called “woman.” You are 100% right. Adam did name her Eve after the fall and the rest of your thought follows.
Again, sorry! We were talking about two different “namings.”
No prob…
You don’t know whether or not the utopia was limited to the Garden. Outside the Garden there may have been beasts that behaved wild. You are asking question to which there exists no evidence to draw a knowing upon.
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. JFK was shot through the head. Christ returned from the dead. Adam was kicked out of the Garden. At some point a Christian must recognize that SUPERnatural events occur, or your faith is dummer than sh**. If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then _______ you can fill in the blank.
It isn’t a far jump to go from Christ’s supernatural resurrection to Ademic perfection beliefs. Stop trying to deconstruct your brother’s faith, or you just might be a heritic.
Ann, you wrote, “You don’t know whether or not the utopia was limited to the Garden. Outside the Garden there may have been beasts that behaved wild. You are asking question to which there exists no evidence to draw a knowing upon.”
Um. No. I don’t know if utopia was limited to the Garden … and you don’t either. I’m not sure that you would want to find out if it was limited because if you could somehow find out if utopia was limited to the Garden, and the rest of the world was already “fallen,” or even “created fallen,” then you would have very, very serious theological issues to tend to, at least if you wanted to keep your present faith expression intact.
Ann, you wrote, “Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. JFK was shot through the head. Christ returned from the dead. Adam was kicked out of the Garden. At some point a Christian must recognize that SUPERnatural events occur, or your faith is dummer than sh**. If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then _______ you can fill in the blank.”
Are you suggesting that presidential assassinations are supernatural events ala Christ’s resurrection from the dead? I’m not following you, at all. Also, if you are going to point at others and say that their faith is, and I quote, “dummer than shit,” then please, for the love of zeus, spell “DUMB” correctly. You sound ridiculous.
Ann, you wrote, “It isn’t a far jump to go from Christ’s supernatural resurrection to Ademic perfection beliefs. Stop trying to deconstruct your brother’s faith, or you just might be a heritic.”
It’s spelled HERETIC. And I may just be one, if being one means being different from you. I’ll let you make that determination.
“Um. No. I don’t know if utopia was limited to the Garden … and you don’t either. ”
This is my point, Shawn. There are other ways of thinking about the Garden than your categorize or mine. The scenario you put forward is old and cliche.
My point about the dead presidents is that they are events that are considered solid historical facts.
Your ad hominem of my spelling is the tone of your Christianity. Your writing points again to the EM movement as being dominated by old liberal that has wasted a many Christian institutions into nothingness. Your all trendy with the messed up hair look. Trend is your substance. Your thinking isn’t something new. The Church has dealt time and time again with people that are in it, but really are there to destroy it. Again, you tone is malicious in nature and smells strongly of the past fifty years of deconstuctionism.
Ann Onymous, you wrote: “‘Um. No. I don’t know if utopia was limited to the Garden … and you don’t either.’
This is my point, Shawn. There are other ways of thinking about the Garden than your categorize or mine. The scenario you put forward is old and cliche.”
I wasn’t agreeing with you, or even suggesting that you had a good point. I was in fact pointing out the shaky nature of the point you are making as it relates to your own expression of faith. If there are other ways to think about the Garden then they are speculative at best, and non-biblical at worst. Are your arguments typically without biblical precedence? I bet not. So, why then are we even having this conversation? Show me in your bible where there is something said about utopia being limited to the Garden of Eden? Incidentally, I have no problem with referencing non-biblical suggestions, but I’m betting that you do have a problem with it. Yours may be a situational problem, but citing non-biblical support is a problem for you, I’m betting. So, why are you trying to do so here?
Further, if the Judeo-Christian story was built upon the idea of utopia being limited to the garden while the rest of the world was “fallen” we have even more/bigger theological problems to deal with, if our goal is Orthodoxy. You can’t see the issues here? Really?
Also, my hair-style should be the least of your concerns. And my reaction to your calling other people’s faith dumb while you simultaneously misspelled “dumber” wasn’t so much an ad hominem as it was a celebration of cosmic irony.
PS: If the scenario I put forward is, as you say, “so old and cliche,” you would think that you would have a better, more sensible answer worked out for it already. Right? I’m honestly not trying to be silly; I am asking you to search deeper than you think you have.
[Comment deleted by editor]
Ann Onymous, or whoever you are, your responses will be published when they are relevant to the topic. I have no intention of engaging in this ridiculousness that you are bringing to this conversation. If you want to continue to actually dialog, then 1.) Stay on topic, 2.) Lose the visceral reactions, 3.) Think about what I write for a period of time before your respond, 4.) Knock off the personal attacks.
If you can’t do any of the above, then go on about your business in Texas and kindly stop filling my blog up with your reactionary gibberish.
Shawn,
You are upset because you can’t respond.
@Ann Onymous – Yep. You got me! Ha! :)
[...] On Lions and Zebras and Genesis Fall – Lo-Fi Tribe [...]
[...] On Lions and Zebras and Genesis Fall – Lo-Fi Tribe [...]