What are the deeper meanings and understanding of the creation narrative reported in Genesis 1 & 2. I am given to understand that exegetical and hermeneutical analyses could price those hidden meanings from the claws of the raw text. Would such meanings be consistent with known reality. For instance, where they reveal factual "knowledge" could these be made to harmonise with knowledge from other spheres of understanding.

Here are the Genesis 1&2 accounts. I would like to invite our resident exegetes to illuminate these narratives in the light of exegetical analysis. I apologise in advance for not being a Hebrew scholar and can only make do with translations in English. This is taken from New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/) and I trust this would not hinder your efforts.

[table]
[tr][td]Genesis 1[/td][td]Genesis 2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]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, [b] 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.[/td]
[td]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 [a] 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.

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- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). 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 [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 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 [g] 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 [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] 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, [j] '
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.
[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Wonderful analysis by Pope John Paul II

1.) Biblical account of creation analyzed => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm

2.) The Second account of creation: The Subjective Definition of Man => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb3.htm

-------------------------
Source => "Theology of the body" => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

imhotep:

Wonderful analysis by Pope John Paul II

1.) Biblical account of creation analyzed => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm

2.) The Second account of creation: The Subjective Definition of Man => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb3.htm

-------------------------
Source => "Theology of the body" => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Sincerely, many thanks for the links. I shall following them up. This is what I need to bone-up on the subject.

@huxley,

huxley:

What are the deeper meanings and understanding of the creation narrative reported in Genesis 1 & 2. I am given to understand that exegetical and hermeneutical analyses could price those hidden meanings from the claws of the raw text. Would such meanings be consistent with known reality. For instance, where they reveal factual "knowledge" could these be made to harmonise with knowledge from other spheres of understanding.

Here are the Genesis 1&2 accounts. I would like to invite our resident exegetes to illuminate these narratives in the light of exegetical analysis. I apologise in advance for not being a Hebrew scholar and can only make do with translations in English. This is taken from New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/) and I trust this would not hinder your efforts.

This is quite warm, genial - the sort of thing a gentleman like yourself would demonstrate to convince me that we can discuss amicably. Thank you for the thoughtfulness in inviting a discussion - and I hope that this thread would bear some very fruitful contributions in like manner.

Let me start off asking a basic question to enable some of us focus on what we might be looking for.

"What precisely do we want to pursue in this enquiry?"

That is like stating the "hypothesis" of the study on those two chapters. There are several possible reflections that might come out of that. A few examples:

(a) it is possible that someone might be hypothesizing that Adam may not have been the first man created - others might have preceeded him. [Let's call this enquirer "Pre-Ad".]

(b) it is also possible that another might be enquiring about the chronology of events in the creation naratives between both chapters. [this enquirer we may call 'Chron']

(c) yet another person might desire to look at some "deeper meaning" that might be suggested in applying the creation narrative to some other life aspects bordering on morality - such as marriage. [we call this enquirer 'Mr. Moore' - since he's concerned with their moral meaning].

(d) don't be surprised, another person comes along and has a legitimate query: could it be possible that there is "evolution" in the creation account? This should not be ridiculed - it is a genuine question and should merit the same audience as the other 3 chaps above. [we give him the badge 'Mr Evos'].

(e) yet, a lady comes along and intones that her hypothesis is to investigate the age of the document and find out if it was a recent document or actually ancient one. She plans to do this by examining the language constructs, hints to existent and non-existent cultures in those texts; so we understand why she is the 'Lit-B' (or 'Literature-Baby').

As you can see, these 5 examples are not all pursuing the very same questions: (a) Pre-Adam men; (b) Chronological events; (c) Moral implications; (d) Evolutionary possibility; and (e) Literary styles.

No doubt, there might be a meeting point somewhere in which all 5 researchers might agree on a basic premise; however, their answers would be greatly influenced by the questions or hypothesis initially stated.

Now, what about the "models" of study in each case?

Each one of these 5 gentlemen and lady would have to decide if they are going to discuss their subjects theologically or teleologically. What this means is simple:

*by theological methods, one may be looking at "rational and systematic study of religion and its influences". In other words, he discusses his subject in a systematic and rational order in a religious manner best suited to his pursuits.

*by teleological methods, the other is not so concerned with the implications of religious leanings, but rather looks at the same issues from a philosophical point of view.

As noted earlier, there may be places or instances where these may meet and warm up to each other - such as the "Philosophy of Religion". Now, for anyone who may be remotely interested in this, a word of caution: many people often confuse the two terms and assume that they are the same as theology. Thankfully, not many people are making that mistake today - and the first definitive paragraph in this link distinguishing both can be found here: (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_relig_index.htm) as reproduced below -

Philosophy of Religion

"Sometimes confused with theology, the Philosophy of Religion
is the philosophical study of religious beliefs, religious doctrines,
religious arguments and religious history. The line between theology
and the philosophy of religion isn't always sharp because they share
so much in common, but the primary difference is that theology tends
to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular
religious positions, whereas Philosophy of Religion is committed to
the investigation of religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion."

Apologies, for it's not my intention to bore anyone here. However, one has to be careful to understand these issues if we would have a better understanding between the various questions that may be generated by examining any particular reference. Which is why I posited that question initially:

          "What precisely do we want to pursue in this enquiry?"

I hope this initial entry is not lost on my reader. . . and in due course, I'll come to elaborate on what I mean by "models" and "methodolgies" in the various studies.

More on the original post.

huxley:
For instance, where they reveal factual "knowledge" could these be made to harmonise with knowledge from other spheres of understanding.

Earlier I explained that yes, there could be a meeting point in most methods of research or enquiry. The example where theology and teleology might meet is what we often describe as "P[/b]hilosophy of [b]R[/b]eligion". There are other examples though, but what is important to note is that there should be no animosity where they don't meet. Often, methods are not the same in researches, and we should not expect the answers and findings to be the same either.


However, the basic question should not be lost on us, and that's why I'd like to highlight it again:

huxley:

I am given to understand that exegetical and hermeneutical analyses could price those hidden meanings from the claws of the raw text. [b]Would such meanings be consistent with known reality.

Depending on what "method" one adopts (theology and teleology, for instance), we could safely say that the meanings could be consistent with knon reality. Let's give an example:

Using these oft-repeated methods (theology and teleology), we basically agree that MORALITY is a present reality that has come to be universally acknowledged (whether or not some people re bent towards the "no meaning in life" strain). Do these two approaches (theology and teleology) afford us with a consistent meaning with the reality on morality we know today? YES and NO.

Yes - they would: and that is if we all appreciate the fact that some moral values like respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, because there is a "meaning, purpose, reason and significance" for why we are here on earth as humans. Of course, I am narrowing this answer now to just between Genesis 1 & 2 - the creation accounts.

No - they may not, often or sometimes: and that is basically because not so many people are aware of the nature of philosophy of religious ethics. Some people attempt to use philosophical ideas to disparage other people's worldviews; and religiously inclined people have used theology as a pretext for wicked things. Whether philosophically or religiously, we are all guilty on both sides of the bridge on this account.

The point of reference now would be that we all respect the principles of each "model" - whther theology (religion) or teleology (philosophy). Just as some people ignore philosophical principles and use "philosophy" to disparage others, so have other men used religious pretext completely in damned consciences to do untold and inhumane things. I value the pointer to this issue that imhotep has often and again reminded us about, often using the example of the communist countries; while we all know the history of religious violence on the other hand.

What then am I saying?

Whether it is Genesis 1 & 2, or even any other text or document, until we all know what questions to ask, and choose our models carefully while respecting its principles, the war will be endless.

Following on from the example between two forms of enquiry (theology and teleology), I remarked that there are certain aspects where they meet and warm up to each other - such as when one studies the P[/b]hilosphy of [b]R[/b]eligion. I'd like to add this repost from one site that offers some substance on the Philosophy of Religion -


[b]What is the Philosophy of Religion?:

The Philosophy of Religion is the philosophical study of religious beliefs,
religious doctrines, religious arguments and religious history. Such a study
is "philosophical" if it is done in reasoned, disciplined manner and takes
account of insights developed in various branches of philosophy: epistemology
(for knowledge claims), metaphysics (for claims about the nature of reality),
ethics, the philosophy of mind, etc. Irreligious atheists' critiques of religion are
thus always a part of the philosophy of religion if they are done well and properly.

Why Should Atheists Care About the Philosophy of Religion?:

If an atheist is apathetic about theism and religion, this subject will have no interest
for them. For atheists who are concerned about religion and who think it is important
to offer sustained, reasoned, and pointed criticisms of religion and religious belief,
then the Philosophy of Religion is indispensable. All of their arguments and reasoning
will depend upon a solid grounding in this subject and an understanding of how it has
developed over the past century or so. Without it, most critiques will tend to be
somewhat superficial, won't have much impact, and won't convince anyone.

Philosophy of Religion & Theology:

Theology tends to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular
religious positions. Philosophy of Religion is committed to the investigation of religion
itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. Theology treats scriptures (like
the Bible or the Quran) as authoritative, while those texts are objects of study in
the Philosophy of Religion. Authorities in the latter are reason, logic, and research,
because the central aim of the Philosophy of Religion is to scrutinize religious claims
for the purpose of formulating either a rational explanation or a rational response to them.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Religion.htm


I'd like to also remind us that the Philosophy of Religion is not perculiar a tool employed by atheists to research theological questions - it is important to remember that Theologians themselves also study the Philosophy of Religion as apologetics. The difference in approaches employed in this type of study is that there is what atheists call "Atheist Philosophy of Religion" while theologians adopt the approach of Hermenuetics with a rigorous apologetical basis.


Just thought to update us on these. More later.

Now, someone might ask: "Why did I refer to an atheist link (http://atheism.about.com/)" in referencing the article on P[/b]hilosophy of [b]R[/b]eligion? Actually, I don't see any problem there, and I wasn't seeking to be biased in any way. I thought the material carried some interesting points that may be for our mutual benefit across the divide - that's why I highlighted the main features of interest in my quote. Let's review some of those quotes:

[list][li]Irreligious atheists' critiques of religion are thus always a part of the philosophy of religion [b]if they are done well and properly.[/li][/list]

This is an essential point. We often find that many so-called critiques of religion are not done properly, although their instigators may assume that they have valid points of interest to make in them. A proper critique requires that one should understand and be properly acquainted with the kernel of whatever he seeks to critique in his analysis. It so happens that quite often, those who are critiquing religion really are not acquainted with the principles of the Philosphy of Religion - and many such people assume a blanket conclusion that "Religion is a dangerous idea that should be done away with". When one makes such kinds of deliberate hoopla, we can be pretty sure that they have no foundation in the proper models of study - in this case, the P[/b]hilosophy of [b]R[/b]eligion (where theology and teleology meet).


[list][li]All of their arguments and reasoning will depend upon a solid grounding in this subject and an understanding of how it has developed over the past century or so. Without it, [b]most critiques will tend to be somewhat superficial, won't have much impact, and won't convince anyone.[/li][/list]

We are all familiar with superficial critiques of religion. Such superficiality tends to often state some default position arising from one's polarized ideas without proper assessment. One often reads the glib statements resulting from this, including but not limited to:

* Religion is a danger to intellectual exercise
* One cannot be an intelligent man and still believe in God
* Science always leads to atheism (or, no scientist can believe in God)

There are even more untennable assumptions than the above - but the point here is that these are superficial critiques. They are not based on sound principles, and more often is the case that they were proven wrong.


I believe that as we spend some time understanding the proper foundation for any enquiry at all, we shall find articulate and accurate inferences to make as well as important distinctions. I have not travelled far in this road myself; but a first step is not so bad - that first step has helped me shed most of my own prejudices, begin to seek balance and objectivity, as well as understand my faith in God better.

I would like to furnish you with an interpretation of the book of genesis by Olufela Anikulapo Kuti. Not the exact chapters you required by the following chapter.

"What is Cain and Abel? Translated into yoruba that reads igi ati agogo. A cane and a bell. What do you do with Igi and Agogo? If you go into the cemetery at night with a cane and a bell and strike it 3 times. koko koko koko. The spirits will rush you saying 'yes, what do you want?'. Because it is all based on dead people. All religion is communication with the dead. you don't believe me? Ha you be ode be dat! If you like take a cane and a bell to the cemetery in the middle of the night. Sit down there! Why do you think Dodan Barracks is in the middle of the cemetery? Because they must talk to dead people before they sleep. For power, Control, influence. Sit down there! Cain and Abel - that is the key."

Nice contributions and Great insights by each one of you. I can't help but laugh at Pastor AIO's summations about why Dodan Barracks is located in a cemetery.

Anyway, here is my two cents,

Each individual human being is made up of four entities

1. fire - spirit - holy spirit - mars
2. matter - body - father - jupiter
3. ether - mind - son - mercury
4. shadow - aura - church - neptune

The eviction of Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden was intended as a message and not a record of event.

What it is : it is the liberation of innocence.
What it is not : it is not, as popularly believed, the physical transportation of two people over two distinct points in space.

By this message, which is passed to all His Prophets, God is admonishing us to the awareness of the cosmos. That awareness is viewed, accepted and acted upon differently by the diferrent specie or race of humans and animals.

The black race feel a intuitive connection to the cosmos. The white race see a practical connection to the cosmos.
The black race is accomodating and submissive. The white race is utilitarian and exploitive.
In cosmic terms these values are not at all negative. However, they have been connotated with negative labels.
Example - it is a strong virtue to be reserved and quiet. In white society quiet and reserved can be mislabeled as dull and boring. A child could be very gifted with inspiration and the ability to foretell events and because white society cannot understand how a future event can prematurely occur in someone's mind without some empirical facts to support it his/her gifts would be dismissed and the child is condemned to psychiatric evaluation. A black person can understand the phenomenon, a white person cannot. A white person can understand why in calculating labour hours productivity cannot include the time spent learning new skills, a black person cannot.

When a new life is born, nature takes that new life and subjects it to a seven-year cycle. So that every seven year the child's awareness is flashed with a new reality of his/her cosmic presence - The Adam & Eve mystery.
It is a new cosmic presence when you have sex for the first time. It is a new cosmic presence when you have your first child, there are many cosmic experiences and each become a new rung on the ladder of ascent. But where are we ascending to? That is the question based on the purpose of life.

I am not sure that I am coherent in the arguments I am stating here and I feel that I may loose the audience in my genuine attempt to position the knowledge the best way I can and still accomplish understanding for the readers.

I will summarize and then take a break to sample response and see if my narrations are effective or not.

The human makeup consist of an outer invisible shell called the shadow or aura. Concentric within this envelope you have the matter or body, you have the ether or mind (also called conscience), you have the flame or spirit.
When you are fired up it also means that you are in high spirit. When you say you are not feeling yourself that means your aura is at that moment weak in magnetism.

In the christian theology, the creed of the blood is actually four, not three. In the name of the Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, and The Church! You do not need to say the Church because it is supposed to be effective but yet invincible (or to put it in a better context - be transparent). It is present but silent; humble and not loud!

In Astrology, mars is the energy planet - egotistic and driving; jupiter is generosity and philosophical; mercury is inspiration and duality and neptune is dark and mysterious.

When God commanded Adam & Eve to get out of Eden, he was instructing them to be open to the cosmos, liberate your innocence and become aware to the limitations of your environment. In other words, open your third eye and not be bound to the limitations of nature (distance, space, time and reality).

Notice how I relate things in fours. Also notice my mention of the number seven. For those of you grounded in Western and Mid Eastern theology (not religion but theology), you should already be connecting the dots and see the gaps closing. Also if you are studied or skilled in traditional African theology you will also see that I am already alluding to the number of creation (7) as well as the number of manifestation (4).

Let me hear your feedback.

Meshimo

Syrup,
  I have few questions to ask on some of the things you said.

Thanks.

Here is a link for an eBook from Amazon-Kindle that goes in-depth with an exegete of Genesis 1-3 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U3DW2A0
Title: Jewel of the Cosmos: Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis 1-3
Author: Michael Bollenbach