Genesis and the creation: a story of knowledge and interpretation

Subject: New creative effort: Genesis and the creation: a story of knowledge and interpretation

 I will submit one piece of caution I am taking a risk of offending people by writing this up and presenting it. Please be reminded off the bat that I have no intention to change your opinion or convince you of a particular right or wrong.   I only felt the desire to create and write this down mostly to fulfill my attraction to a creative insight and outlet. In some ways it could be could be considered a work of art. It is first and foremost a story for me and has meaning for me.    I did not sit with the idea that I would create a story and reinterpretation of about Genesis in the Bible. The whole idea (in part 2) and story basically came to me in a whole piece.  Part 1 was added later as an introduction to allow people to embrace interpretation more completely.  The concept for part 2 was clearly acknowledged as not mine and was reworked to fit my purposes.

===============My Story=================

Genesis and the creation: a story of knowledge and interpretation

PART 1 

The Power of Interpretation

Interpretation has been a powerful mechanism in our understanding of the world and our religious beliefs. How we interpret often controls how we act. This little essay has two parts to it the first part tries to show you a little bit how the power of interpretation takes place even within biblical stories and the second part tries to give an alternative interpretation to the creation story. Both of these are done not to destroy someone's belief or to attack individual beliefs. The intended purpose of this essay is to try to open our minds to new ideas and see if those new ideas might benefit us in our mental comfort and guidance for daily actions.

To show the power of interpretation I would like to focus on a passage in the New Testament. The essence of the subject is the lawfulness of taxes and the story is told that the Pharisees would asked Jesus the question, "is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?  And Jesus replied. "Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

These verses I took from the King James version of Matthew 22 verses 17 through 21.

Now I have read at least one complicated interpretation of understanding Jesus's answer. And I have read other interpretations that require bringing into context things that were not actually mentioned in the verses. Lately I was introduced to what I thought was an elegant rationale and explanation for Jesus's answer by Jason Hommel.  Interpretation depends entirely on viewpoint sometimes.

credit acknowledgement for integrity but you do not need to read it, you get complete understanding from reading only my entry below....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/hommel2.1.1.html

For the Pharisees they saw the inscription of Caesar on the money and so was easy for them to rationalize that the taxes were lawful and should be reentered unto Caesar because the money belong to Caesar.

At the same time a devout well read reader of the Old Testament might have instantly recognized that Haggai 8:2 could be consulted where Jesus says, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, said the LORD of hosts".  And by this devout person, regardless of the inscription of Caesar on the gold coin the well studied reader could interpret that regardless of what's written on the gold coin that the gold itself belongs to God and maybe conclude that it was unlawful in God's laws to pay taxes.

Two different perspectives coming out to two different conclusions and having two different resulting actions all because of a single interpretation. My purpose here is not to show you which way is right only to show you that outcomes often hinge on which "story" we believe. And what "facts" we think are "facts" appropriate to use for decision outcomes.

PART 2  

Genesis a reinterpretation

Keeping that in mind, and the material I was learning in applied eco-psychology when I wrote this, I would like to offer you a different interpretation to the story of creation presented in the book of Genesis in the Bible. It seems to me that the prevailing interpretation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is that adam and eve ate of the forbidden Apple and that was the original sin and that God created a mechanism for saving mankind by having Jesus come and die for our sins. 

Now please hear me clearly I am not here to say that this interpretation is wrong. Nor am I here to say that my interpretation is right. I am simply presenting a alternative viewpoint to create thoughtful reflection as to this  question, "Are there any benefits in believing and acting on either interpretation?"

So this is part is a huge what if…

What if in the beginning there was a single intelligent conscious entity and that conscious entity wanted to become more aware. To be aware you have to have something to be aware of. In the desire to become more aware this conscious entity began to create and as is told in the story of Genesis... God created planets, suns, stars, earth and heavens and much more. All those assisted the single entity in becoming aware.

Now what if in this process of awareness growth this conscious entity became aware of being unique in its aloneness experience. Thus, this entity decided to create other beings in which to interact with and further increase its self-knowledge and self-awareness. After the creation of this second entity. What if the second entity was like a baby in its knowledge and experience but not in it's powers, when compared to the original creator. If so then this baby would require time guidance and parenting to reach the maturity of the original creator because it was lacking the time and learning that the original creator gained from creating the heavens and earth and all of the other "things".  Since this was God's first living creation what type of parenting path would it choose. Without the advantage of and experience of having raised "children" before it seems reasonable to think that God would go about it the same way he created "things".  It seems like our world and the solar system and heavens are put together with recognizable physical laws which are reliable and it seems reasonable that with this type of experience in creating things based on laws and rules that our God would set down lots of laws and rules for his first child. This child having many of the abilities of God but not the experience and maturity would probably be rebellious and a poor student in learning due to not seeing the sense behind why he shouldn't take shortcuts to achieve his desires. As the second entity got all much older it would probably be quarrelous and quite disruptive to much of God's creation.  It seems to me that this second entity experiencing all these rules would feel quite "SAT ON".  In other words, in not being allowed to do what he wanted to do, emotionally this entity would feel like there was always a lid on his learning and actions.

Regardless of how the split that occurred it seems natural that God would say okay fine, Mr. "Sat on"have it your way, here is in the area that you can play in.  No rules but one, just stay away from all of my stuff, if you come over here and play with my stuff I will do "X".  But as long as you stay in your own playpen you can do what you want if you break something it's your responsibility, you figure it out.

With a lot more free time God now was able to turn his attention to reflection he started wondering what was different about this second entity Mr Saton and why its growth didn't flow as smoothly as what he expected. With more experimentation to guide God noticed that all of these animals, planets and "planet"ary systems seem to work along quite well but as soon as God created a creature with ability to be self-aware and knowing, the new creation (being) did not respond by continuing in the direction that set for it. God noticed that these living beings that are self-aware and knowing seem to take off in other directions then was intend, sometimes even creating areas of havoc and chaos an otherwise well-run and orderly universe.  

Now after a millennia or two of further reflection God's understanding grew deeper. OH I see.... as long as I have creatures who stay with their old brain (cerebellum and limbic) systems these (beings) like animals seem to do okay but the creatures with the neo-cortex which allows for self-awareness and knowing, have some type of feedback loop that drives them off course and away from the pure sensory directions they would get from the old brain sensory systems (cerebellum and limbic).  So instead of following the instinctual direction I sat for them they start following their new brain curiosity and self-created stories and new knowledge which sends them in a unintended direction when compared to the course I originally plotted for them.

At this point,  I like to think as a parent that, God seriously considered creating no more creatures that had this Neo-cortex. Because it interfered with his free time and made his universe more messy.  Basically God got tired of picking up the building blocks and putting them back in order.

Yet in God  There was a strong desire for knowing and being AND there was a certain satisfaction in relating to the creatures who had self-knowing. That satisfaction was the satisfaction of give-and-take and co-creative processing which was missing when dealing with objects that did not have self-knowing. 

 After another millennia of reflection God was convinced that the universe would be better if only a way could be figured out on how to include these (beings) and guide these creatures with the neo-cortex into maturity.  At the root of God's decision to go forward was the recognition that by creating creatures with knowing and self knowing, the end result was to increase the amount of what was known not only about the universe but about God itself.

So God continued creation due to a certain amount of curiousness and desire for more self-knowledge.  After all experiencing yourself in relationship to others is a very good way to learn about different subtle facets of yourself. Here, there is much a story that has been lost.   It seems there was probably many more millennia of experiments test and learning but that part of the story has not been revealed to me.   Maybe we don't need to know this part to understand.

With further knowledge and experiences God finally got around to creating what we call human beings. And God tried to create a safe play pen for them, which we call the "Garden of Eden" in the Bible.  In trying to prevent previous errors in raising children, this time, God created instead of many rules only one rule, "don't eat of the tree of knowledge".  OR maybe after many tries and experiments God found out that everything seems to work just fine until I add this one ingredient called knowledge. And maybe that's why he created the one rule about not eating from the tree of knowledge.   Maybe God started Adam and Eve as beings without an activated Neo cortex. Yet left them the free will to choose to activate self knowledge, knowledge, and the new brain Neo-cortex, by eating the apple.   Because free will is important to the growth and learning for these beings.

Maybe everything went along well until Mr. "Saton" came over to visit this new creation and playpen of God's.  And of course, simply had to follow his desire to play.  In his natural curious and rebellious nature it seems reasonable to think that Mr. Saton would ask himself I wonder why God instructed these beings do not eat this fruit and I wonder what would happen if they did.  Being a young still and inexperienced Mr. Saton probably tried many times and failed at trying to get Adam and Eve to eat this fruit. However through experience, craftiness and perseverance (all very normal qualities in many rebellious children) Mr Saton finally succeeded in creating a situation where Adam and Eve did eat of this fruit,  thus activating the Neo-cortex (the functions of language and self-knowledge).

Now many of the fundamental religious beliefs have interpreted the eating of the Apple as Original Sin and part of that original sin was having sex.  And because of sex mankind fell into a less than perfect life. And needed rescuing that only God could provide through Jesus.

Now I can't say that interpretation is wrong but I have wondered if it might not be missing the mark by some degree. I am sure that my own understanding and interpretation will change again as I gain more life experience. But right now, I curiously wonder if the reason mankind fell into a less than perfect life had less to do with sex and more to do with the activation of knowing and self knowledge. I am seeing the Apple as less as a symbol of sex and more as a symbol of knowledge.

Now this may be a bit of a leap for some of you but try to follow me anyway. As I have grown older and explored more ideas than just my religious upbringing.  I have come to believe that the universe is put together with the series of attractions.  These attractions are built in and innate to all living creatures. Attractions you ask what do I mean? Well,.... science has discovered that each atom and molecule is made up of smaller pieces that are attracted to each other and these attractions create all the elements on the periodic chart which we use to base much of our science, chemistry and building infrastructure. In living things like plants, attractions are simply part of their DNA. Roots grow down into the ground and attract molecules and elements as nutrition and branches and leaves grow to the sky and attract different elements required for growth and the benefit of the whole planetary system like removing carbon from the air and providing back oxygen.  There is no neo-cortex (for self knowledge & language) needed for plants to achieve their optimal growth.   Plants and animals follow their instinctual attractions to food creation and in general life.

Attractions in humans is a little harder to find at first, but I think there is ample science at this point in date to show that our old brain (the cerebellum and limbic) system is built to operate quite elegantly with our sensory apparatus.   If this is true then we might be able to consider that our attractions (inborn & innate) are located in our old brain.  Some even believe that for millions of years we successfully survived our environments by the use of only the old brain. 

I would like to propose that this shift to using the new brain (neo-cortex), self knowing and the language is where we as humans started to become disconnected from using natural attractions to make decisions. 

For my current view point, I see us making decisions based on what we think we know in our new brain, even if it is wrong.   (This is not my thoughts only, credit here goes to Mike Cohen and applied eco-psychology.)  First, I am inclined to think that we were able to survive for several millennia before the advent and use of our new brain. Second, In the short time since we have used the new brain we have already developed ways to make ourselves extinct.    It does not seem that we are on the path we were originally set on.  Between these two ideas I wonder if the new brain has some points failure and if the old brain might be in some ways superior.

As for interpreting the story of Genesis I am leaning towards the Apple representing this shift from old brain to new brain.  I am less inclined to think that the Apple represents a shift from no sex to sex or from innocents to guilt.

It is completely possible that my fantastical thinking is wrong. But I am much more comfortable believing this interpretation than the one I grew up with in my religious instruction. I would like to believe that my interpretation accommodates and fits more "facts" of the evidence as we know it now. Whereas the religious interpretation, I was taught, did a better job of fitting the evidence as people experienced their world thousands of years ago. Updating what we know is always important when given new information. And reinterpreting what we understand of the world as we gain new experiences and new information is important if we are to grow.

I always resented the guilt and restrictions built around sex due to the religious interpretation.  I do not at all want to deemphasize the importance or sacredness of sex. I think it is a very important part of our world and deserves careful consideration not just playful Obsession or isolated enjoyment.   There are many important considerations involved with the issues of sex.   There are many ways in which sex has unintended consequences or outcomes.   I also recognize that there are many people that have been hurt and many situations in which sex is not used for the highest good of those involved.   And I cannot help but think that just as money is not the root of all evil, neither is sex the root of all evil (as I get the feeling that some would like us to believe).   I want to say one last thing and move on.   Sex is much like fire, used correctly it has many beneficial properties and adds to the enjoyment of life, used incorrectly or if misunderstood it can the  hurt  or change the course of many lives.   It is something that takes wisdom to use correctly and without that wisdom can quickly become uncontrolled and cause damage.

I have always felt uncomfortable with the concept of original sin and that everyone was doomed to some extent because of a choice made by the original parents Adam and Eve.  It does not make sense to me that God would make a system or a garden of eden in which any single sin would set off a chain reaction that would cascade for ever and require God's intervention to correct and rescue.  Would you as a parent make a play pen for your children that contained the cliff of the grand canyon or a poison).  Nature has many redundant and self-correcting systems.  I recognize that it does not have to make sense to me for it to be true.  But I'm not talking about truth here. I am talking about trying to make sense of the world as we know it and not be captured by stories that may not make good sense today.

When I look at the human body it  has many redundant and self-correcting systems this seems at odds with creating a  human being and a garden of eden (a system) where a single sin would be for perpetuated into eternity without the chance for self correction. As a God of love and as a parent of children I cannot understand why a loving God as a loving parent would create such a system. Who among us has any desire to see their children's children beset with our own problems we created. What type of God would that be?   Would I be attracted to following a God like that?

I do not and cannot claim to know the mind of God. And I do not claim that I am right. However I propose this interpretation and thoughts to you for your consideration. With the hopes that you will weight and judge for yourself this idea over time.   Try not to instantly judge these ideas with an instant like or dislike.  Certainly there are many IFs and problems with my story. 

Yet there are things that I like about my story.  What I like most is

the idea that there is a self-correcting system available to human beings without requiring God's rescue. That self-correcting system is...(using applied organic eco-psychology) to go back two using our old brain sensory connections to find attractions and make decisions based on those old brain attractions.  If this is available to us all then maybe .... just maybe the message from Jesus was to go back to the intent of using love heart connections of the old brain sensory attractions instead of using judgments and rules that are more new brain language creations. Another thing I like is that I believe this interpretation fits more of the experiential evidence in life as I have experienced it.  It also seems to fit more of scientific evidence as I think we it know today. And last but not least, I  am attracted to the image of the God in my translation more. To my mind, my translation God is more loving and less judgmental.  IN my version,  I see God as more a learning being and open to growth than having a fixed and rule oriented mind.  I think my translation also allows me to see God as more of a vulnerable parent than a totalitarian or authoritarian ruler. My translation allows me to see God as someone who has instituted and maintained free will yet provided and allowed us to find ways to self correct correct and get back on track.