THE FIRST CONSPIRACY: Hermeneutic Analysis

Paul Whelmer Alforque, Departamento de Filosofia, 1997, Camara de Pensador.

The Honorable Magistrates, before this dignified institution, I submit the structure of my thesis anchored on the third chapter in the book of Genesis, focused on the Fall of Man, which says:

Genesis 3

The Fall of Man

 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
      The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

It is my stand, as could be inferred from the text, that the first great conspiracy took place in the Garden of Eden. I based this perspective on the following circumstances:

One, it is in the book of Genesis wherein Adam and Eve committed the first sin that engraved in human soul.

Two, the Garden of Eden was supposed to be a safe place designed by God for the prime pure human beings and their offsprings.

Three, the Garden of Eden is a paradise for Adam and Eve where God communicate directly to man.

Four, that God being the supreme being has absolute control over the paradise which is designed for the sinless being such as Adam and Eve.

Five, that Adam and Eve were totally innocent before they ate the fruit, having no knowledge of any foolishness nor of any sin of any kind.

Six, that the fruit of the tree of knowledge, when taken, shall give them the malice which capacitates them to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Seven, that prior to the taking of the fruit, Adam and Eve is essentially ignorant on the concept of good and evil, because their minds are supposed to be opened at the time they will be tempted to eat the fruit.

Based on these premises, Honorable Magistrates, I come to an honest yet logical perspectives, that:

One, God is not intending man to exercise their freedom because they have no freedom of choice between right and wrong considering their lack of knowledge on what is right and what is wrong. Adam and Eve were really destined to FALL because they cannot use their good judgment on the pretext of their innocence.

Two, the unfortunate fate of Adam and Eve was really God’s plan. God being the supreme being has an absolute control over the entire paradise, it is within his power to drive off and disperse the Serpent who made the temptation.

Three, with the preordained knowledge that the minds of Adam and Eve were NO MATCH to the shrewdness of the Serpent, yet God allowed the Serpent to occupy a particular place in the paradise and authorized it to communicate with Adam and Eve.

Four, by these virtue, it is my contention that the First Great Conspiracy in human history may have been taken place in the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve being the victims of the whims and caprices of God and the Serpent, and God and the Serpent being the conspirators and partners of their game out of their own boredom.

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”

PUBLIC DEBATE: RELIABILITY OF CREATION

1999, Somewhere else in this globe.

Pastor: Yes, everything is created by the Supreme God.

Barrister79: How certain are you about it?

Pastor: Very certain. It is in the Bible, in Genesis.

Barrister79: I am not asking you if it is in the Bible or not. How true is it?

Pastor: It is the word of God. It is true, of course.

Barrister79: You seemed to have no understanding of the question, Pastor. Alright, since you are talking about Genesis, I think it is proper to start at the beginning. Can you please read Genesis 1:1?

Pastor: [stated the verse with his memory] “In the beginning the God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis:1:1-2

Barrister79: Is that what you call proof word of god?

Pastor: Yes.

Barrister79: Is it not a direct declaration of the writer?

Pastor: God instructed him.

Barrister79: Where in the Genesis that god instructed his or her writer to write something for him?

Pastor: What do you mean?

Barrister79: Authority. The authority of the writer to write for god.

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know the earth has no form and it was void?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know it was the spirit of god that moved in the face of the waters?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. Was the writer a real witness of creation?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Was the writer present while god is in the process of creation and witnessed the entire incidents?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Why can’t you just tell all of us that the entire tales of  creation is a matter of theology? No need to answer this question, I think we are not interested with your theology.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE THEOLOGY OF SPIRIT

On the later part of the direct examination, Bishop Shrewd strategically managed to propound his last two questions:

Bishop Shrewd: Considering all those presentations, can you please tell us your educational qualifications and studies in relation with your thesis on the existence of the spirit?

Rev. Swindler: I obtained my Bachelor of Christian Ministry in 1970; Bachelor of Theology in 1973; Master of Arts in Theology in 1975; and Doctor of Theology in 1979. All from Harvard University.

Bishop Shrewd: Now, can you categorically state that spirit exists in reality?

Rev. Swindler: Affirmative.

Bishop Shrewd: Thank you, Reverend.

Arbiter: Cross-examination, any?

Barrister79: Reverend, in all years of your studies, have you come to directly observe spirits?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, in many ways.

Barrister79: I am not asking about the “many ways”, Reverend. Did you understand the question?

Bishop Shrewd: Is that a sort of an insult, sir?

Barrister79: You have the right to take it as such, Bishop. I was asking about the direct observation on spirits based on the assertion of its real existence. Was it difficult to understand?

Arbiter: Are you asking of an observation based on physical contact?

Barrister79: I want to know if that is what he meant with his statement that spirit exists in reality.

Bishop Shrewd: That is preposterous, Your Honor. Spirits does not have physical bodies. Its reality is not based on material substance as what is established in the direct examination, this Holy Tribunal has the record.

Barrister79: That is the reason why I am asking, Your Honor, about the Reverend’s direct observation to check whether the reality he is talking is excusively a product of his studies or something which we could possibly know by virtue of the object which could be directly observed.

Bishop Shrewd: I am requesting for an order, Your Honor. I recommend to aim his examination on the term “reality” as the foundation which is ought to be laid.

Arbiter: Comment from the cross-examiner.

Barrsiter79: That is improper, Your Honor. It is my understanding that there is no reality other than the observable reality. If the purpose of the Bishop’s obstruction is to prevent me from asking any further question, then I will yield should they admit that the reality they are talking are mere concepts and not the objective reality. Now, if I may proceed, Your Honor?

Arbiter: Please proceed.

Barrister79: Thank you! Reverend, do you know that every real object has a component?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, I am aware of it.

Barrister79: Are you also aware that only nothing is composed of nothing?

Rev. Swindler: Ahhh… Yes.

Barrister79: Do you know that there is no reality when there is no composition which makes it real?

Bishop Shrewd: Your Honor, the examiner was just playing the semantics of language.

Barrister79: We can stop playing, Bishop, if the reality of your spirits will be established. Allow me to proceed, Your Honor!

Arbiter: Answer the question.

Rev. Swindler: Yes, of course. No composition – No reality.

Barrsiter79: Good. [smiling] Now, can you tell us what composed the spirit you have directly observed?

Rev. Swindler: You mean the composition that makes spirit real?

Barrister79: Never mind, Reverend. Just don’t bother yourself about it.