The sin of Adam and Eve

Originally posted by junglejake
Eve then presented him with the fruit. Adam had a choice, one I'm sure many of us have faced. He could not imagine a world without Eve at this point, and was faced with this decision. Does he choose the woman he loves, or God. Adam was faced with this choice, and he chose to eat the fruit. He chose Eve over God.

Yes, but he made his choice in inocense. He did not comprehend the choice until after he made it. Neither did Eve. After they made the choice, they ate the fruit, and then they understood what they had done was wrong. They did not understand that before, because they had no knowledge of good and evil. How can you just ignore such an obvious dilemma?

All you guys are doing is repeating the story and talking about choices, you are not addressing the fundamental problem, which is that Adam/Eve had no concept of right and wrong until after they had eaten the fruit!!!!

Geeze this isn't hard.

How can they be held accountable by god for a moral failing they did not comprehend? Even in human law we do not arbitrarily hold people accountable for actions, their intent plays a major role. Children are not held accountable for crimes because they do not have the moral comprehension. This is the same state Adam and Eve were in. They were like newborns from the perspective of comprehension of right and wrong, yet god held them accountable anyway. It isn't a rational expectation on the part of god, nor a just punishment.

They did not yet know that disobedience was wrong! God told them they would die if they ate the fruit (we also have to assume he gave them supernatural comprehension of what the word 'death' meant as they had no experience to draw from).

He did not tell them they would actually keep living for quite a while and pass on sin to the world and basically destroy all of creation in the process. He did not tell them they would be eternally punished either. God did not give them the knowledge they needed to make a moral decision, yet held them accountable for it anyway, and proceeded to make the consequences much more severe than what he told them.

Originally posted by NuTroll
they did have concept of right and wrong. God put them to the test and they failed, just like everyone else did save one.

I have to assume you haven't actually read the story then, because it explicitly states they recieved knowledge of right and wrong by eating the fruit. That would be the reason the tree was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

What about the Sumerians tablets? has anyone read these since these are our oldest creation story on record. Dang ,, wish that Library wasnt burnt down. Just think of all the knowledge that was lost!:bnghd:

no, the tree was symbolic of satan. how could they not know when God told them not to? they knowling disobeyed God and listend to satan.

give me a link to the tablets.

Adam and Eve did have knowledge of Good.....For God created them all GOOD.
With FREE WILL ......God gave ONE Commandement to not eat from that tree that would result in death,pout of the two trees mentioned in Genesis,the tree of Life is mentioned once again in Revelation.....Which is the Immortality of MAN.

The tree of knowledge appears nowhere else in the Bible, but the tree of life is elsewhere described as Wisdom (Proverbs 3.18). In the vision of the Book of Revelation, the fruit of the tree of life is promised as a reward for the faithful, and there are other ancient texts in the Hebrew tradition which describe the beautiful perfume of the tree of life and how its fruit would one day be given to the righteous (1 Enoch 25). This fruit is described as the ‘sevenfold instruction concerning his creation’ (1 Enoch 93.10). The tree of life was a source of knowledge about the creation, it was the source of life, and, as we shall see, it was the source of healing and renewal.

The result of DEATH(spiritual and physical ) occured because MAN did not confess to his mistake .....FOR BREAKING THE ONE LAW of God.

God being a Father figure wanted an apology(confession)but did not get one..instead, Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpant.....none would take the blame on themselves.....
Things like this OFTEN happen today.....we do not want to be blamed and so we blame others for our mistake and ignorance .


Also, ......read also~Margaret Barker: Paradise Lost~

IX
helen

Originally posted by pieman
given that christians believe god to be fair, loving and omnipotent then as a christian we can not take this story to be literal. instead we must assume it to be a parabel much as the story of the good samaraten or the prodical son, and must examine the story for its true meaning.

pieman's getting at the truth,the creation stories and much of the old testament stories are Hebrew myths,many christians may like to interpret them as literal fact but the originators of the stories viewed them as myths and parables.
No one can provide any sensible,reasoned argument that the bible is the word of God,blind assumption in the face of contradictory fact.

[edit on 30/8/2005 by Ras Dedan]

Originally posted by spamandham
All you guys are doing is repeating the story and talking about choices, you are not addressing the fundamental problem, which is that Adam/Eve had no concept of right and wrong until after they had eaten the fruit!!!!

God told Adam not to eat from the fruit. Adam passed that command to Eve. When they decided to eat of the fruit, they chose their own reason and their own desires over God's command. They may not have realized just how wrong it was, or even that it was wrong, but there were still consequences for chosing himself or herself over God's will.

Has there ever been a decision you've made, completely innocently, that has caused some major ramifications in your life? Ignorance of the law does not mean you're not under that law. In this case, they were not unaware of the law, they chose to do other than what God said. As a result, there were consequences. Not having knowledge of good and evil does not mean you don't know what you should and shouldn't be doing.

Right now, I could chose to quit my job and go out into the mission field in Equador. Would that be evil? Not according to my religion, the one we're talking about, no, it wouldn't be evil. However, it would also not be God's will for me right now. I could choose to do my will, and ignore God's, and I'm sure there would be consequences. Upon eating the fruit, they saw the full ramifications of what they did, but they can still know what to do and what not to do without knowing evil.

Originally posted by junglejake
They may not have realized just how wrong it was, or even that it was wrong, but there were still consequences for chosing himself or herself over God's will.

Then the god of the Bible is an unreasonable tyrant. Even we fallible humans recognize that culpability rests on the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and not merely on the facts of a case. This is why children, the insane, and the severly mentally challenged are not held accountable for crimes.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies only to those who have the capacity for moral culpability, and even human law accknowledges that much. Someone who does not comprehend right and wrong does not have such capacity.

Originally posted by NuTroll
no, the tree was symbolic of satan. how could they not know when God told them not to? they knowling disobeyed God and listend to satan.

give me a link to the tablets.

Here is a link I found helpful. of course you can always do your own search. There are lots of sites on this subject, but this one has pictures.Earth History
The Tree is Symbolic. Its a metaphor. But not of " A Satan" because this was an invention of the Church, I think 4th century A.D. I will look it up for you an find a good link if you would like.
The serpent blamed for the temptation in the Garden is not a serpent at all. This is a metaphor, a symbol, where do you see the word satan? This is strictly an invention of the Church. This is what we have all been brainwashed to believe. That Satan is the serpent. Its best to do your research on the History of the Church.

satan is not an invention of the church. read ez 28, isiah 14, job 1 and 2, 1 chronicles 21:1, and on his goal in daniel 9:25-27

the serpent could possibly in reference to burning. (in hebrew it means burning like from snake venom). this would qualify it as being a seraph (or burning one) which is a type of angel probably (or star see gen 1).

[edit on 2005-8-31 by NuTroll]

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by junglejake
They may not have realized just how wrong it was, or even that it was wrong, but there were still consequences for chosing himself or herself over God's will.

Then the god of the Bible is an unreasonable tyrant. Even we fallible humans recognize that culpability rests on the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and not merely on the facts of a case. This is why children, the insane, and the severly mentally challenged are not held accountable for crimes.

... but your missing the point. they DID know right from wrong.They were NOT ignorant of the law. it isnt like they were card carrying retards. God specifically told them not to. Learning evil is knowing and doing satans work of rebellion.

Originally posted by NuTroll
... but your missing the point. they DID know right from wrong.

According to the Bible, they didn't know right from wrong.

Originally posted by NuTroll
They were NOT ignorant of the law.

They were cognizant of the command, but did not yet have moral culpability, as they did not yet comprehend the concepts of right and wrong.

Is it your position that knowledge of the law, even if you are not a moral agent, is sufficient for judgement? If so, make sure you tell the judge that if you ever get selected for jury duty.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by NuTroll
... but your missing the point. they DID know right from wrong.

According to the Bible, they didn't know right from wrong.

No, accordint to the Bible they didn't have full knowledge of good and evil. That doesn't mean they didn't know right from wrong. In our morally relativistic world today, many people don't believe in any kind of evil existing -- they think it's a culture thing. Despite that, they know right from wrong, they know what they should and shouldn't do.

Spamandham
First of all—let’s throw a few words out, and establish some substitutions, just for the purpose of examining your question. Words have been bastardized into such misconceived standards based on limited thinking and religious indoctrination.
Words to throw out: good and bad, right and wrong (These are judgment words, not words of discernment, and are relative in every usage)
Substitute:
conscious connection/communion with the Creator for LIFE.
Separation/communication breakdown with the Creator for DEATH.
Skin as a barrier between soul and Creator for SIN
The existence of experience for ‘THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE’
Light/happiness/positive energy/truth/love for GOOD
Darkness/misery/negativity/delusion/desolation for EVIL
Catalyst/temptation for SERPENT

I could do it a few other ways, but this is just a start.

First of all—interestingly enough, the 9th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is Tet and represents ‘the serpent’ and ‘the hidden good in what appears evil.’ The most ancient form of the letter is a circle with an x in it—which is the same symbol used by astrologists to represent earth. Also—9 represents judgment in the bible. Judgment meaning ‘the opportunity to discern and choose’ or what some call ‘free will.’

God told Adam not to eat. Adam was responsible, as the head of the family, for Eve’s actions. He didn’t fulfill this—it is not for a husband to be a tryant and dictator, but as the head of the family, he is the ‘responsible party.’ Since it is he that is accountable for the family’s actions he should exercise his best judgment. He should make sure everyone is equipped for what they face—else he should accompany them to help. This is a simplistic definition, but is essentially what the head of the household was meant to be.

Eve was alone, Adam was ?
Eve ate, and Adam ate, too—because he and Eve were of the ‘same flesh and bone.’ And because he reacted, instead of taking responsibility from that point on. Eve didn’t listen to Adam and Adam listened to Eve instead of God.

It’s not about right and wrong and knowing the difference. Eve didn’t know the difference, so she was to just ‘obey’ what Adam said—because neither did Adam understand—that’s why he was to ‘obey’ God. We are to listen to the One who knows better than we do and loves us as a Father—just as we do our earthly fathers. Same thing.

Was God a trickster? No. Was God caught unaware by their actions? No.
Why did God ask ‘where are you Adam’ and ‘who told you you were naked?’ Because it’s not about making mistakes, they are expected, and they are powerful teaching tools. But we cannot learn from our mistakes if we won’t even admit them—if we pass the buck we cheat ourselves out of expanded understandings—and ensure ourselves of repeating the mistake. That’s called ‘denial.’

God put that serpent there, that serpent was to guard that tree. God knew the serpent would act on its own jealous emotions (since it had realized that Adam, not himself, was set up to inherit the kingdom), and God knew Adam and Eve didn’t know what death was. There was much hidden good in that seemingly evil day.

God wants us to be companions who are conscious and able to self-govern. He doesn’t want to baby sit any more than that serpent did. Besides that, He desires we have a full existence, understanding all things—something that cannot happen if all things are not experienced.

Also—the serpent created by God was God’s chief Angel—and that Angel never knew anything else but God’s perfect world. He was the best and brightest and was offended that God did not create Him as His son—his own blind pride and assumptions clouded his understanding of God’s plan. He didn’t want to bow to Adam—he wanted all to bow to him.

God set this Angel up to serve as our example—not wishing to condemn a being who didn’t know anything. That angel is ‘the anointed cherub that covers’ and as such, represents our flesh, made of ‘dust.’ The punishment of that Angel was to ‘eat dust’, consume man as Behold said, and also to stand guard between man and the tree of Life.

Adam and Eve were clothed with skins God made for them.

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Genesis 3:21 KJV

God made these skins—to say He killed animals for their hides is an assumption that is not indicated anywhere in the bible. God hid them from His sight, using skin to cover their flesh from Him. They did not listen to God, and so they lost the privilege in favor of the existence they chose by listening to the serpent, but only for a time—enough time to return as ‘prodigal sons’ wise to the ways of the flesh and the world, and knowing without a doubt that which the serpent didn’t get to know ahead of time. That away from God is misery and pain, darkness and a limited time of being a continuous sentient being (mortality).

The thing that happened in the garden was not the bad thing that is believed. If it weren’t for that—life would be boring for God—and us—there’d be nothing to talk about! We wouldn’t understand what He said, and we’d not even be capable of ‘small talk.’ God can extend His own mind as much as he wants (angels) but He wanted to extend it for the purpose of unique experiences and personalities--all created in His likeness, but with new and beautiful ideas and thoughts. It's positive for everyone---after the necessary negativity--which is even for good.

That's the difference between God's evil and man's evil. God's 'evil' is done for the purpose of good, and man's is done out of selfishness. The 'evil' of man is the true evil because it is without purpose and vain.

The choice is the tree—will you gain wisdom by listening to God who will guard and guide your learning experience on earth (i.e. ‘life’) or will you believe the false ideas of flesh which is covering the truth inside us all—which is ‘worldly wisdom’ and may seem quite good—but the truth is—the end of that knowledge is never realized. You will die with as many unanswered questions as you were born with.

That’s why God came into flesh—to usurp the serpent’s place in flesh—and to make Himself accessible to us all. He overcame the barrier we had, by showing us that death is not the end, but the doorway to true life. Christ took over the guardian position of the flaming sword, and so know we can access the tree of Life (god) through Christ, instead of being barred from it by Satan (skin/sin)

‘Original sin’ is common to all because all are born with skin and consciously separated from God.

We are not 'good' or 'bad' based on whether we listen--just wise or foolish. After all, only fool ignores what His Father says--and is punished, most of all, by the consequences of not listening. Does that mean the Father is unfair, or desires the child to suffer? No. The prodigal son is worth some serious contemplation. Everyone who leaves their home in foolish haste will eventually return--and home is always home--home is the One that loves you--and it's often taken for granted until apathy and hate from strangers is experienced. No one appreciates having enough to eat until they've truly gone without.

P.S.

In regard to 'only a fool doesn't listen to his father.'

We've all been a fool like that. But we learned from it, and as we learned, we realized our dad's motivations wise and loving.

That is, those of us who were blessed with a sound, loving, and mature father. Sadly, I know that's not always the case. But anyone suffering that misfortune, believe me when I say there is a better Father just waiting to show you how it's supposed to be.

Originally posted by junglejake
No, accordint to the Bible they didn't have full knowledge of good and evil. That doesn't mean they didn't know right from wrong.

I guess I don't see a distinction between good/right or evil/wrong.

Are you saying that the Bible tells us that they did in fact have partial knowledge? If so, I'd be interested in the scriptural references that support that.

Queenie, if I understand your position, it sounds like (correct me if I summarize this improperly) Adam and Eve were set up for a fall, so that they would realize that they needed god, sort of like a parent who lets a kid get into just enough trouble to realize they need mom and dad, but not enough trouble to be a permanent injury. Is that roughly your position?

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by junglejake
Eve then presented him with the fruit. Adam had a choice, one I'm sure many of us have faced. He could not imagine a world without Eve at this point, and was faced with this decision. Does he choose the woman he loves, or God. Adam was faced with this choice, and he chose to eat the fruit. He chose Eve over God.

Yes, but he made his choice in inocense. He did not comprehend the choice until after he made it. Neither did Eve. After they made the choice, they ate the fruit, and then they understood what they had done was wrong. They did not understand that before, because they had no knowledge of good and evil. How can you just ignore such an obvious dilemma?

I'm pretty sure Eve would have known the differences between good and evil when she made the choice to offer the "fruit" to Adam.

All you guys are doing is repeating the story and talking about choices, you are not addressing the fundamental problem, which is that Adam/Eve had no concept of right and wrong until after they had eaten the fruit!!!!

They had more than a concept of GOD. And, GOD had given them only 1 rule.

Right or wrong, Good or evil = a choice was made by 3 individuals, and they all made the choice to disobey GOD. Knowing right or wrong, existing with only 1 rule, only 1 law, only 1 commandment, the choice was made.

Geeze this isn't hard.

For an intellect of your superior calliber, perhaps not. But, 2 of the intellegent entities in the garden did know of the knowledge of good and evil when the choice to present Adam was made.

How can they be held accountable by god for a moral failing they did not comprehend?

Perhaps Eve could be held accountable, because she did know, and was in effect the first human to sin against another human being.

Even in human law we do not arbitrarily hold people accountable for actions, their intent plays a major role. Children are not held accountable for crimes because they do not have the moral comprehension.

It would be ironic how true that statement proves to not always be the case in some "First World Countries". Here is a brief story of a girl who was charged as an adult, and convicted:

Teen who posted own photo charged with child porn
Monday, March 29, 2004
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.
Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.
She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.
Police said they are trying to identify all the people who receive photos from the girl.

Basically, yes--and the story is largely written from the POV of the observer--neither from Adam and Eve's view, nor God's--not even the serpent. (though I couldn't say who it was--but you know what I mean)

It's a seemingly simple enough narrative--on the surface. But the book of Genesis (or rather up until the time of Noah) the is just as deep as Revelation--no doubt the rest of the bible is multi-layered and rich for discovery by anyone with an open mind--but the first and last books are a pair--they are allegorical in nature--

--which does not mean a 'parable' but means exactly this:

figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another; a presentation of one subject under the guise of another; a presentation of an abstract or spiritual meaning under concrete or material forms; a symbolical narrative.

Now, even if I talk about what these books really mean to someone else--I cannot get away from some sort of allegorical communication--although, in my mind, I understand it in its literal form--but this form is spiritual and not something one man can tell another man without a story of material things to illustrate. And reading the material stories will never quite get you all the way there--but they are a start. And then at some point in time, the Spirit begins to make it all clear. The only way these thoughts are transmissible is by way of spirit to mind--God to man.

'The fall' is the 'fall from consciousness'--and the restoration is what is written of in Revelation.

And all the time in between is basically straightforward because it is of the same existence we currently are in--the only one we know. But the stories of Genesis and Revelation are about the transitions from non-aware consciousness to fleshly mortality--and then from fleshly mortality to fully aware consciousness.

Adam and Eve were clothed with skin (original sin took place)
We will rise incorruptible and immortal (sin and death are defeated)

Think about this--we are not 'sinners' because we 'sin'. We 'sin' because we are 'sinners.'

Now read that again with 'sinner' replaced by 'a being unaware of the consciousness which is God' and 'sin' replaced by 'not listening to God.'

We have bodies that grow from babies, to adults, maturing to wise elders. (hopefully, LOL)

Same with our soul--that soul is a 'fetus' unaware of its parent. Then the soul is 'born'--emerging into consciousness through life given directly from the parent's life. The soul grows from a child, to an adult, and finally into a spiritually mature, self-governing soul.

Just as with our bodies, our souls must learn and grow under the tutelage of a loving parent--whose rules may not always make sense to the immature mind, but nevertheless, those rules are established solely from the motivation of love and the desire of the parent that the child grows into a happy fully functional adult. As maturity increases, more and more understanding of the parent is also gained--and the intended end goal is that the child becomes able to judge for themselves what they should and should not do and in so doing, avoids the miseries and hardships that come to adults who were rebellious to their parents or who parents didn't care enough to discipline them in love--many times it is because the parents are afraid the kids won't like them. That is not mature nor is it fair. Other times it is because they themselves didn't receive that either. (that is the 'sins of the father visited on the son'--it's not the sins being directly paid for by the son...the parent's irresponsibility caused the son to suffer as a consequence--the son wasn't forced to pay retribution, but it did cost them)

And on any level, the most effective and permanent learning method is experience--although a parent's guidance is also required. The parent can't fix things--but they can patch the wounds, dry the tears, and help the child up on their feet when they fall. But unless the child trusts the parent's love, this can't happen. It doesn't matter if the rules make sense, only that the love is felt, and the rules obeyed. The child doesn't have to apply sophisticated moral concepts for the ideas of good and bad (good feels nice and bad hurts, good is to mind and bad is to 'get in trouble')---and what is right for a child is to listen to the parent, and what is wrong is to disregard the instructions of the parent.

The parent would give his life to save the child's life--and so can be trusted to protect as much as is possible.

And with God 'all things are possible.'

Now, add to the parent/child mix a third party who only knows how to instigate trouble--interfering by subverting the parent's motives and causing the child doubt and mistrust that is unwarranted. (your dad didn't say you couldn't go swimming in that tree-trunk snake infested river because he doesn't want you to get hurt--he just doesn't want you to have any fun, did he really say you'd get hurt? Look, I swam there last week, I'm not hurt...it's not like he says...yada yada yada)

This person stirs up strife because of some sort of envy--just like that serpent in the tree. Just as Paul talks about:

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1 Corinthians 3:3 KJV

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 1 Timothy 6:3-5 KJV

and James:

For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
James 3:16 KJV

Originally posted by helen670
The result of DEATH(spiritual and physical ) occured because MAN did not confess to his mistake .....FOR BREAKING THE ONE LAW of God.

No--the result of death came because they ate of the tree.
But eating the tree wasn't the sin--disobeying God was the sin.
God gave a rule for their own good, and they ignored it. They suffered the consequences because of disobedience.

'Not eating of the tree' is not one of God's laws. It was an ordinance given in that situation. Laws are principles which do not deviate, and which govern cause and effect. Ordinances are rules--which are limited in their jurisdiction according to the situation in which they are given.

A law is something like 'the conservation of matter'--exampled when God said 'from dust you came, and to dust you will return.'
A rule is something like 'don't eat the daisies, they are poison'--an example of which is 'don't eat the fruit of that tree, it will cause you to die.'

God being a Father figure wanted an apology(confession)but did not get one..instead, Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpant.....none would take the blame on themselves.....
Things like this OFTEN happen today.....we do not want to be blamed and so we blame others for our mistake and ignorance .

God did not want or need an apology--as we all know 'I'm sorry' doesn't mean a darn thing if it happens again. And the only way to prevent a mistake from being repeated is to admit to one's self that a mistake was made.

God knows we make mistakes and expects it, even. We often can't look in the mirror and say 'hey man you screwed up!' It hurts! When we don't though, depression (anger turned inward) looms on the horizon. Get enough of that and suicide is in your mind (murder turned inward).

God wanted Adam to face up to what he'd done for Adam's own good--not to assuage God's feelings.

The word 'blame' is basically the same as 'accuse.' We can accuse others, or we can accuse ourselves. Or we can just accept the responsibility that is rightfully ours.

Blame is saying 'it's my fault, it's your fault.'
Accepting responsibility is saying 'I did something I shouldn't have done.'

Does it matter what the reason was--where the fault lies? No--what's done is done, no matter why. The 'why' never changes the consequence. To think that it will is to offer an excuse.