Thursday, November 1, 2012

The Fruit


Wednesday, January 8, 4217      Six Questions & One Answer
      
A Solution for 8000-Year-Old Mystery:  Forbidden Fruit is Sex
But Forbidden Fruit Produces No Children in Garden of Eden                                                                      
For thousands of years, the identity of the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden has been unknown.  If the fruit in the story is the traditionally believed apple, or another literal fruit, it would simply be called by its literal name, and not the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Because eating a piece of this literal fruit would give only knowledge of the literal fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil.  So...

If literal fruit is not the fruit in the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, then what is the fruit? Why are the two super secret trees assigned the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil?"  Is the talking snake Evil Angel speaking words, or does the talk represent something more subtle?  Could two men have yielded to Adam and Eve's temptation?  Why would a smart man and woman succumb to a forbidden fruit tree, instead of to one that is NOT forbidden, especially when both "trees" are right next to each other in the center of the Garden?  How is the couple's disobedience of the very first commandment to be fruitful and multiply while in the Garden linked to their decision to make only fig leaf aprons, instead of complete clothing, in this incomprehensible narrative, with its guesswork of interpretations and its hints of sexual behavior?

A lone exegesis combines all six questions for one answer, using only evidence in the dreamlike Bible chronicle, for an intelligent and sensible explanation of the world's oldest and greatest fruit mystery.  Annotations of this evidence in the Genesis 2 and 3 Bible story identify the fruit as sex.  The solid evidence offers no support for historical fruit identity opinions.  But, even with the evidence, is this unique exegesis the correct exegesis?

The full exegesis is available for evaluation in a brief read at the link below:

https://www.amazon.com


*****
Key Found in Garden Center Simplifies Over-engineered Story?

Here is the key that unlocks the door, opens it, and presents the exegesis:
BOTH TREES ARE IN THE CENTER OF THE GARDEN.  Neighbors.
No further inquiry will be needed if this all-important detail is realized. And the source of the sexual undertones in the account will be clearly seen.


*****
Baffling Emotional Distress

Why does practical identification of the fruit in the center of this uncanny garden create such turmoil amongst allegory perceivers, when this quite reasonable identification impairs no one's beliefs?  The only thing the identification does is supply the world's oldest and greatest mystery fruit with a foundation of seriousness traditional story analyses fail to provide.  Emotions triggered by the exegesis do not negate the exegesis accuracy.  Neither do ad hominem attacks against the messenger negate accuracy.


*****
Just Another Doctrinal Neologism?

Is the book's exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis just another neologism?  No, it is not.  If the book's exegesis is only another neologism, but not the exhumation and revelation of the original story, then not only do the individuals who first hear the story have absolutely no idea what the story means, but neither does the original storyteller. Imagine the storyteller saying, "Sometimes I just say things.  I don't know what they mean."  It is somewhat difficult to imagine this event happening.

If it does happen, then the original storyteller tells the story while having no understanding of the words being said, unless the storyteller decides to deliberately disguise and beautify the story, to hide its true meaning.  This will certainly require complex ability, to intentionally mystify at the very dawn of human consciousness.  It will also require the original listeners to not ask the original storyteller any questions about this new story--a story that makes no sense.  So, the mystification probably happens later.  And, of course, when it does, everyone will know the meaning of the entire story. For a while.


*****
Three Notes...Plus...The Two-Fruit Pleasure Exegesis

Please note:  the exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis in Starry Night's  Judge This Book By Its Cover  is directed to curious realists fascinated by puzzling insistence on denying glaring, convincing evidence.  The evidence in Genesis combines reason, emotions, logic, feelings, and spirituality for an exegesis at least equal to the eating of a forbidden apple.

An allegorical Eden Garden is superimposed upon a literal counterpart?

Finally note also:  both the written Epic of Gilgamesh and certain written Indigenous Australian folktales predate the world's historically written oldest and greatest fruit story.  Although these two entities do not necessarily predate any prehistoric oral tradition narratives, future book introductions will include a change from "oldest story in the world" to "oldest mystery story in the world" in an attempt to avoid textual errors.  In any event, comparing ages of written stories is irrelevant to the exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis.  The exegesis speaks for itself.  And this is what the exegesis says in the book's common sense summary:

They eat the fruit, but what do they eat?
We lift the veil, for a wary peak.
Through a forest of mystery hiding it all,
We see a body, naked and weak.

This BODY is the Garden in whose center grow
The two famous trees, but never a weevil.
Here is the tree of life and the one
Of knowledge of good and knowledge of evil.

Because the two trees are right next to each other
Care must be taken to avoid the one bad.
For the fruit of both trees is pleasure,
So the pleasure is there to be had.

To be fruitful and multiply eat from the first.
But eat from the second and no one conceives.
So here we go now:  one, two, three--
Pleasure, shame, fig tree leaves.


*****
Preliminary Wrap

The Genesis story tells us in Genesis 2:9 and 3:3 both trees are in the center of the Garden.  So the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is right next to the allowed tree, the Tree of Life, and its fruit.  If the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree is literal fruit, the eating of this fruit would give only knowledge of the fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil.  But the covering of the genitals with fig leaf aprons following the eating of the "fruit" does indicate sudden acquisition of knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge that results in sexual shame.  It is difficult to understand how eating literal fruit results in sexual shame.  And it is difficult to understand how normal and necessary sexual relations between Adam and Eve result in sexual shame, since the first and only specified commandment to them is to "Be fruitful and multiply" in the Garden, a commandment they disobey, because no children are produced until after the eviction from Eden, and after they have normal and necessary sexual relations for the first time in Genesis 4:1.  But their obedience is too late:  guardian cherubim and a flaming sword prevent reentry into the Garden.

Adam and Eve execute a double disobedience when they eat of the fruit forbidden--they fail to procreate, by doing what they are forbidden to do.  And they fail to procreate, by not doing what they are commanded to do.  Both failures occur simultaneously.  The fruit in the Garden of Eden is not forbidden sexual pleasure, but forbidden nonprocreative sexual pleasure--nonprocreative sexual pleasure derived from a specific forbidden sex act.


*****

Irrational Fear

The irrational fear of the fruit's identity in the second and third chapters of Genesis presented in "Judge This Book By Its Cover" has resulted in great animosity towards the exegesis of the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, the exegesis being Adam and Eve's pleasurable engagement in nonreproductive anal sex, represented in the allegory as the temptation (the talking snake) of forbidden "fruit," in disobedience to God's first and only commandment to them to "Be fruitful and multiply" in the Garden.

But from where does this irrational fear come?  And, if the evidence for the exegesis is based on confirmation bias, then where is the counterevidence?  Deflecting an argument to a related topic in an effort to avoid emotional discomfort is an example of a defense mechanism, but not an example of presenting counterevidence.  The exegesis of the forbidden fruit's identity presented in Judge This Book By Its Cover is solely the result of exploring the mystery, and applying reasoning and logic to the evidence in the story.


*****
An Ancient Postmodernist, Relativist, Nominalist Interpretation

Evidence is meaningless.


*****
Is this post an extended ad for an Amazon product?

No, it is not.  The full exegesis is presented in "Judge This Book By Its Cover."  However, as was mentioned earlier in this post, if the reader carefully considers their mystical names, and the fact that both allegorical trees are right next to each other in the center of the Garden, then reading this book will not be necessary--the apt exegesis will be seen in its clarity.  And the relevance of this long-forgotten biblical exegesis will be seen to... The Third Precept, and the relative truth that allows selection from equals.


*****
Pertinent Postscript

Members of the academy tend to criticize the exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis presented in Judge This Book By Its Cover as being intellectually-weak plainspeak, lacking in both quality and quantity.  In an effort to acknowledge this criticism, the following excerpt is presented from THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES, Volume XV, JULY, 1899, Number 4.  The article is entitled, "ADAM AND EVE IN BABYLONIAN LITERATURE."  The author is Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph.D.  Dr. Jastrow was Professor of Semitic Languages at the University of Pennsylvania at the time of the article's publication.  The selected excerpt from Dr. Jastrow's article is found in Part IV, page 212, and reads as follows:

"9.  Ukhat promises Eabani that he will become divine, so the serpent, whose role is confused with that of Khawwa, or Eve, makes a similar promise.  Originally, the promise was made to Adam alone.  The alteration of the tradition enlarged it into a promise to both Adam and Eve.

If it be objected that the Babylonian and biblical tales thus interpreted have an element about them that wounds our sensibilities, we must bear in mind that an earlier age regarded such perfectly natural incidents in the life of man as the satisfaction of the sexual instinct with a naivete which it is hard for us at the present time to understand.  At the same time, the biblical compilers recognized these objectionable features of the story, and skillfully concealed them, to a certain extent, under veiled expressions, or gave certain phases of the story a different turn.  In doing this, the compilers did not act altogether in an arbitrary spirit, but were aided by the transformation which early traditions underwent among the Hebrews, to make them conform to the religious and social conditions prevailing at a later period.  This transformation, which to a large extent was a popular success, is the factor which accounts for the important divergences of the biblical story of Adam and Eve in its final shape, from the more original and naive features of the common tradition as preserved in the Eabani-Ukhat episode."


*****
Second Postscript:  Traditional Identity of The Fruit Persists

The widespread belief that the fruit is an apple has its genesis in the 12th century.  And this remains the apex identity reaching us in the 43rd century, still based on no evidence for the existence of a literal fruit.  But to end on a positive note, the acceptance of the evidence-based exegesis of the identity of the fruit in the world's oldest mystery story is at last making headway, as increasing numbers of people manage to set aside the emotions and feelings spinning them in circles, and acknowledge--at least until a better exegesis appears--the evidence in the Bible story of the talking fruit snake.  This long-forgotten exegesis explains everything, and offers enlightenment for the untrue and oft repeated, "Only God knows what fruit they ate."  Yes, a Deity would know what fruit they "ate," but the evidence in the Genesis story reveals the Deity's knowledge of the fruit's identity to anyone who wishes to know, and has the courage to overcome their emotional resistance and uneasiness resulting from being exposed to this knowledge.  Would this exposure be eating once again from the forbidden tree?  Would a Deity want us to remain ignorant of the Genesis story's meaning?  No to both questions, because our garden is not their Garden--we are no longer living in the Garden of Eden's state of grace.  And secondly, the evidence in the story clearly tells us that Adam and Eve did not disobey the "be fruitful and multiply" Genesis 1:28 commandment for the purpose of acquiring knowledge of good and evil.  Their acquisition of this knowledge was a byproduct of their disobedient behavior, which was to experience nonprocreative pleasure by eating allegorical fruit from the allegorical wrong tree in the center of an allegorical garden, while at the same time quite possibly living in a literal garden with literal fruit trees and literal snakes that do not talk to women.