I didn't say it was an undesirable development or that it was some sort of Utopia without it; I said it came with significant consequences -which it undeniably did. I don’t disagree with the rest of what you’ve said about how gradually and organically agriculture came about, but that doesn’t change the fact that it eventually did change and shape the social dynamics into ones that are more hierarchical, socially stratified, and based in violence. Don't put words in my mouth - it's lazy debate meant to deflect from the fact that you can't actually rebut my actual points.
The "author" of Genesis was some old Middle Eastern dude steeped in the myths and culture of his time. It's essentially a parable to justify stamping out the dominant religion of the region, wherein Ishtar (Astarte, Inanna, Nan, Nut, Isis, Au Set, Asherah, Attar) the Queen of Heaven, is no longer powerful, but in fact, the source of shame and downfall. Her sacred animal, the serpent, is cast as conniving and evil.
"In later times when the worship of Yahweh was becoming more prevalent, it was still the noble and the royal who were the least likely to give up the worship of the Queen of Heaven entirely. “According to the Bible, King Soloman, at about 960–922 BC, worshipped Ashtoreth as well as other local deities. He was eventually threatened with the loss of his kingdom for having forsaken Yahweh and revering the Queen of Heaven.” (1) There are 27 verses in the Bible that describe the struggle to wipe out the worship of Asherah and her consort Baal. In 1 Kings 15:13, Maacah was removed from being the queen mother because she made a “horrid image as an asherim” (a devotional depiction of the Goddess.)"
Nice try, but you can't take down an educated, nuanced argument with a blunt instrument.
