Eden and the Tree of Knowledge

gnostic said:

The more I look at the Creation and Adam in the Genesis, I got this feeling that Adam and Eve would have been expulsed from the Garden of Eden, if they had eaten the forbidden fruit or not.

Click to expand...

Could you explain why you "got this feeling"?

Do you think Adam and Eve and their descendants would have been allow to stay in Eden, if they didn't eat the fruit?

Click to expand...

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, I believe they would have been allowed to remain in Eden. However -- and this is a big however -- I don't believe they would have had descendents. Until they ate of the fruit, they were not fully mortal. They were not subject to death nor were they able to procreate.

I just don't see how they can possibly stay in Eden, if what was supposed to happen in the Bible - happened. It seem they were fated to leave Paradise. If so, then it would also seem that God had manipulated the events, so that Adam and Eve would fail the test of obedience.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would use the word "manipulate," but I more or less agree with you. If God had really wanted Adam and Eve to remain innocent and naive, and worthy to live in Eden forever, He certainly could have made sure they were not faced with the temptation of the forbidden fruit in the first place. He wanted to give them the freedom to choose, but He knew what their choice would be, and knew that, in the long run, the choice would benefit not only them, but us. I say this because of what I said in the previous paragraph. Had they not made the choice they did, we wouldn't even exist.

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, I believe they would have been allowed to remain in Eden. However -- and this is a big however -- I don't believe they would have had descendents. Until they ate of the fruit, they were not fully mortal. They were not subject to death nor were they able to procreate.

Click to expand...

Why then were they created with different genders if not for procreation? If Adam and Eve could not procreate in Eden, then the only reason for God to have given them different genders is because he knew they were going to eat from the tree.

And that proves that God is negligent. he put the tree there in full knowledge that Adam and Eve would eat from it.

Wouldn't you be negligent if you left a gun on the table knowing for a fact that your child would pick it up and kill someone?

Katzpur said:

Could you explain why you "got this feeling"?

.. They were not subject to death nor were they able to procreate.

He wanted to give them the freedom to choose, but He knew what their choice would be, and knew that, in the long run, the choice would benefit not only them, but us.

Click to expand...

Interesting theories.
I came to the same conclusions long ago, almost. And this is a big almost.

There is no logical or scriptural reason to believe that Adam and Eve were incapable of procreation prior to the fall. I believe they were perfectly able to procreate. IMO it would be silly of God to require disobedience / punishment / eviction to grant procreative rights. There'd be no reason or logic behind such an act.

My assumptions are:
God is sovereign.
God's sovereignty is complete and total.
God's knowledge of all events is and was complete before creation.
God therefore knew what would come of his creation vis a vis the Fall.
God deemed it Good to create us nevertheless.

When I asked myself Why? I could only come to one conclusion that made any sense.

He created Adam and Eve with free will. You cannot have free will without not only the possibility, but the certainty or eventuality of disobedience.

When I realized that He, being the author and creator of free will, and the author and creator of our total nature, had to have known humanity would disobey eventually, I tried to imagine another scenario. An imaginary reality where humanity is created with free will, but the inability to disobey. It's obvious to me that would never be possible.

(Which brings up another point I tossed around in my imagination, they could have been in the garden for many thousands of years, or two days before the fall, who knows. Eve could have been tempted for weeks or months or years, we don't know.)

Anyway. He knew they would disobey eventually.

Therefore, "free will" trumps "obedience" in God's eyes. He wants us to love him, and to obey and worship him yes: but freely. After experiencing existence 'on our own', after divorcing ourselves from him, the believer becomes the prodigal son. The prodigal son who runs to, embraces, loves his dad not out of fear, or ignorance of the truth but of his own free will. With full knowledge of what it means to reject the love of the father, to waste the inheritance, to be in despair and to suffer from pride.

(this next part is a little off track, but what does Dad do next? Kills the fatted calf, puts a 'new garment' on the son, places his ring (of covenant/inheritance) on his finger, and calls for everyone to come celebrate... it is a 'type of Christ' parable)

.... more

......So back to the point of free will, all of human history from the garden until now is worth it in God's eyes.

Put another way:

When I decided to have children, I knew I wanted to raise them to become strong adults capable of living their lives independently, and that there would exist the chance however slight, they could grow up to distance themselves from me, become hostile towards me, maybe even divorce themselves from me altogether. But I had faith in my parenting skills and in my children; now they are grown and we enjoy loving relationships based on mutual respect.

However that was not always the case. There were several periods when they were disobedient, hostile, and expressed their hatred and anger towards me. Even if that had become a permanent situation would I ever wish they hadn't been born? No.

I also chose NOT to raise them in such a manipulative fashion so as to stunt their growth, make them overly dependent upon me, afraid of the world and themselves, tying them to me forever.

So I say "independence" trumps "obedience" in child-rearing, eventually. Even when we know that independence means they leave us, and may never come back.

And another thing: back to the Prodigal Son story.

Remember the brother? Remember his bitterness and anger towards his brother who had been 'lost' but now was found? The entire 'house' was ordered to drop everything and celebrate, yet the brother would not.

When we ask, who was the more grateful brother from then on, the answer is obvious: the prodigal.

And further if we ask who is the more likely to rebel, or become more and more embittered, to set himself up as a judge of his brother, his father, maybe extending that judgementalism to the rest of the world in general for what he imagines is the hard lot he has been dealt - it's the prodigal's brother.

Which brother will likely become closer and closer to his father, to love and respect him more with every passing day, until the end of his life? The prodigal.

I truly believe God has answered the question of free will and the Fall in this parable.

Tiberius said:

Why then were they created with different genders if not for procreation? If Adam and Eve could not procreate in Eden, then the only reason for God to have given them different genders is because he knew they were going to eat from the tree.

Click to expand...

Of course He knew. Did I suggest that He didn't?

And that proves that God is negligent. he put the tree there in full knowledge that Adam and Eve would eat from it.

Click to expand...

Well, make up your mind. Which is it? I thought you were an "atheist all the way." If God is negligent, that obviously means God exists.

Wouldn't you be negligent if you left a gun on the table knowing for a fact that your child would pick it up and kill someone?

Click to expand...

Would you be "negligent" if you left a bottle of water next to a man dying of thirst, knowing for a fact that he would pick it up and drink it? Since when does negligence have anything at all to do with how God set the scene in the Garden of Eden?

Katzpur said:

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, I believe they would have been allowed to remain in Eden. However -- and this is a big however -- I don't believe they would have had descendents. Until they ate of the fruit, they were not fully mortal. They were not subject to death nor were they able to procreate.

Click to expand...

I think you are forgetting one vital thing, Katzpur.

Straight after the creation of male and female humans, and before the temptation and expulsion, God said the following in Chapter 1:

Genesis 1:27-28 said:

And God created man in his image, in the image of God He created him; male and female. God blessed them and said to them, Be fertile and incease, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.

Click to expand...

How can they possibly do this, without living Eden? How can they do this, without procreation?

Adam and his descendants couldn't possibly rule the earth, from just sitting in one place: in the Garden of Eden. What you are telling me, Katzpur, is impossible; a catch-22. You are also contradicting verses 1:27-28.

Chapter 1 make no mention of the Fall of Man or the Serpent's Temptation. Genesis 1 also make no reference to Adam's expulsion from the Garden. All this event, with the temptation and punishment is in Genesis 2. God gave them blessings to be fruitful and mulitply in Genesis 1, but Genesis 2 sees that this procreation as a punishment. He blessed them in 1, but cursed them in 2. That in itself is contradictory, as well as being illogical, unless He had no intention of keeping them in Paradise. Which one is it?

That's why this so-called forbidden fruit and punishment, was all a setup from the beginning. God had no intention of letting them stay in Eden. He also had no intention of letting them become immortal, even if they didn't eat the fruit.

Moon Woman said:

There is no logical or scriptural reason to believe that Adam and Eve were incapable of procreation prior to the fall. I believe they were perfectly able to procreate. IMO it would be silly of God to require disobedience / punishment / eviction to grant procreative rights. There'd be no reason or logic behind such an act.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is nothing in the Bible that expressly states that they were incapable of procreating. However, have you ever stopped to consider that they were naked together in the Garden for an unknown period of time before they ate of the forbidden fruit? We do know from the scriptures that it was not until after they ate it that they were even aware that they were naked or had any feelings of "shame" about being seen naked. I suspect that this is indicative of the fact that, sexually, they were like children. Sure, they had adult bodies, but the apparently did not experience sexual attraction until after they were cast out of the Garden. It is not until chapter 4 of Genesis that we are told that "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived."

As to whether it would have been "silly" of God to requirement them to eat of the fruit before granting them procreative rights, it actually is quite logical. Assuming that Eden was a real place, and that they would want to live there forever, don't you think it would have eventually started to get just a bit crowded? If no one was ever to die, and everyone just lived happily ever after in this paradise, it wouldn't take too awfully many generations before it was no longer paradise.

Ah, Katzpur. Read post 87 (the one above your post).

gnostic said:

I think you are forgetting one vital thing, Katzpur.

Straight after the creation of male and female humans, and before the temptation and expulsion, God said the following in Chapter 1:


How can they possibly do this, without living Eden? How can they do this, without procreation?

Adam and his descendants couldn't possibly rule the earth, from just sitting in one place: in the Garden of Eden. What you are telling me, Katzpur, is impossible; a catch-22. You are also contradicting verses 1:27-28.

Chapter 1 make no mention of the Fall of Man or the Serpent's Temptation. Genesis 1 also make no reference to Adam's expulsion from the Garden. All this event, with the temptation and punishment is in Genesis 2. God gave them blessings to be fruitful and mulitply in Genesis 1, but Genesis 2 sees that this procreation as a punishment. He blessed them in 1, but cursed them in 2. That in itself is contradictory, as well as being illogical, unless He had no intention of keeping them in Paradise. Which one is it?

That's why this so-called forbidden fruit and punishment, was all a setup from the beginning. God had no intention of letting them stay in Eden. He also had no intention of letting them become immortal, even if they didn't eat the fruit.

Click to expand...

gnostic,

I realize that I have no biblical support for my beliefs on this subject, but as you probably know, I don't believe that the Bible contains a complete record of these events. I believe that Eve recognized that she and Adam were faced with a bit of a dilemma, and that they could not fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth until they had eaten the forbidden fruit. Consequently, she had sufficient foresight to choose the lesser of two evils. That's we we Latter-day Saints don't think of Adam and Eve in the same light as most Christians do. We think they were pretty remarkable individuals to have made the choice they did.

Katzpur said:

I believe that Eve recognized that she and Adam were faced with a bit of a dilemma, and that they could not fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth until they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

Click to expand...

But it would seem that God had already given them blessing to go forth and multiply, before even temptation and eating of the fruit. This showed that the humans could already procreate before their punishment God had mete out.

God gave them this blessing on the 6th day, when he had created man and woman, as shown in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2:1-3, he speak of completing his creation before the 7th day, so that day would be the day of rest. The eating of fruit (Genesis 2) and punishment/expulsion (Genesis 3) must have happened after the 7th day.

The blessing on the 6th day wouldn't make sense, if man and woman can't already (have capability to) procreate before the punishment.

Genesis 3:16 said:

And to the woman, He said, "I will make most severe your pangs in childbirth; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Click to expand...

God's punishment in Genesis doesn't say that "at this point" that they can procreate, Katzpur. They already had the ability to procreate or have children, He only stated that Eve's childbirth or child labour would be most painful. So it would make sense, that they already can have children, but from this point on, women would experience painful pangs.

gnostic said:

But it would seem that God had already given them blessing to go forth and multiply, before even temptation and eating of the fruit. This showed that the humans could already procreate before their punishment God had mete out.

Click to expand...

You and I are reading this differently. You are saying that God blessed them with the ability to procreate. I am saying that God blessed them, and gave them the commandment to procreate.

God's punishment in Genesis doesn't say that "at this point" that they can procreate, Katzpur. They already had the ability to procreate or have children, He only stated that Eve's childbirth or child labour would be most painful. So it would make sense, that they already can have children, but from this point on, women would experience painful pangs.

Click to expand...

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, gnostic. You're accusing me of reading more into the biblical account of the Fall than what Genesis says happened, but it seems to me that you're doing the same thing yourself. The Bible doesn't actually state one way or the other whether they could procreate prior to being cast out of the garden, but it doesn't give any indication at all that they were intimate prior to their punishment being enacted.

Physically, they may have had all the "equipment" necessary to procreate, but I don't believe it would have happened until they were, at the very least, aware that they were naked. To me, this awareness is symbolic of the knowledge and insights they experienced upon eating the fruit. Since I don't believe the events in the Bible took place over a period of seven twenty-four hour days, I suspect a fairly significant period of time may have elapsed in between the time God placed them in the Garden and when they ate the forbidden fruit. I don't know of very many men and women who could be running around naked together in a beautiful garden for very long without feeling some kind of attraction for each other.

I realize I can't support my beliefs using the Bible as my only source, and since I always try to stick solely to the Bible in these debates, I really don't have any further comments.

I'm not fussy. I'm agnostic, not Christian. I had used the bible here, because it is the main source for such debate. If you want to use other sources, other than the bible, then please do so, Katzpur. I have absolutely nothing against using other sources.

In fact, my whole website on Dark Mirrors of Heaven was researched, using sources other than the bible. Although, I had spent time a lot of time on the biblical Genesis from chapters 1-11, I had also supplemented it with Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha literature (such as the Books of Enoch and Book of Julibees), from the Talmudic Haggada, and even from the Gnostic texts (like The Apocryphon of John or The Hypostasis of the Archons).

So I have no problem with you using other sources, like say from Joseph Smith or his version of the bible (or from the Book of Mormon). Heck, I would even let you use the Qur'an, if that would you happy.

Katzpur said:

I agree that there is nothing in the Bible that expressly states that they were incapable of procreating. However, have you ever stopped to consider that they were naked together in the Garden for an unknown period of time before they ate of the forbidden fruit? We do know from the scriptures that it was not until after they ate it that they were even aware that they were naked or had any feelings of "shame" about being seen naked. I suspect that this is indicative of the fact that, sexually, they were like children. Sure, they had adult bodies, but the apparently did not experience sexual attraction until after they were cast out of the Garden.

Click to expand...

Yes they were naked, and yes they were without shame not having yet eaten of disobedience, because God did not, not, not build "shame" into the sex act. If we are to assume (rightly, and scripturally) that everything in the garden was as it was created, in other words in the total perfection of its created state, then we know that the relationships within it were also perfect. This does not exclude sexual love between Adam and Eve. Merely because the act is not mentioned does not mean it didn't happen. It is we who equate (quite incorrectly) shame with sexuality.

To toss nakedness, shame, and sex into the mix is to do a great disservice to the subject of free will and the fall IMHO.

It is not until chapter 4 of Genesis that we are told that "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived."

Click to expand...

Properly translated it is a simple "first this happened, and then this happened" statement. IOW, "Jane's husband knew Jane, and she conceived". There is no implication that they were virgins at the time.

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Original sin has nothing to do with Adam and Eve having sex. God created them not only with the ability and freedom to have sex, but with the instruction to do so! As was pointed out earlier: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number."[/FONT]

As to whether it would have been "silly" of God to requirement them to eat of the fruit before granting them procreative rights, it actually is quite logical.

Click to expand...

No, not logical if we assume God's total sovereignty.

Assuming that Eden was a real place, and that they would want to live there forever, don't you think it would have eventually started to get just a bit crowded? If no one was ever to die, and everyone just lived happily ever after in this paradise, it wouldn't take too awfully many generations before it was no longer paradise.

Click to expand...

Not if you assume God is sovereign. Providing sufficient living space for his creatures would be no challenge for him; nor do we know how the pre-Fall human body worked in its perfection. We have knowledge only of its current imperfect state. It is quite possible, for example, that a married couple would have only the number of children pre-ordained by God to live in a perfect world. We would not assume, however, that God would ordain perfect humanity to produce an imperfection (overpopulation). To do so would be to deny God's total sovereignty.

Actually an excellent fictional "what-if" account similar to this was provided by C.S. Lewis in his book "Out of the Silent Planet", the first in his 3-book science fiction series. The creatures there lived very long lives, and after several centuries or so, when the time was "right", asked to be taken up to live "in the next place". That's only one possibility, there are many others.

The point is, once we open our minds to the idea that what we see here and now is only a faint resemblance to the original perfection, we can imagine the profound difference between perfect sexuality and fallen sexuality.

Katzpur said:

You're accusing me of reading more into the biblical account of the Fall than what Genesis says happened, but it seems to me that you're doing the same thing yourself.

The Bible doesn't actually state one way or the other whether they could procreate prior to being cast out of the garden, but it doesn't give any indication at all that they were intimate prior to their punishment being enacted.

Click to expand...

Actually, I had remained faithful to the source (Bible), and had followed it through, quite carefully.

Genesis quite clearly state he made man and woman on the 6th day, and told them before the end of the day, to go forth and multiply (Genesis 1:24-31), which I had already quoted in the previous post. The creation of man and the blessing (or command, if you wish), was given on the 6th day, and at the end of that day:

Genesis 1:31 said:

And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Click to expand...

So clearly, they could easily procreate before eating the forbidden fruit, Katzpur.

I was no way doing the same thing as you.

The punishment of Adam and Eve did not state that they had the ability to procreate at this point, but Eve would suffer pangs when having children and that Adam would toil endlessly for food, til the day he die.

I have not played around with words. I don't even believe in the Creation or anything from chapter 1 to 11 of the Genesis. But a good scholar (however, amateurish I may be in regarding to religion) would use whatever sources that are available to him (or her).

As I stated in the last post. Bring whatever you like into this debate. I don't mind, as long as you keep it in with the framework of Adam and Eve, and of course, the Garden of Eden.

We do know from the scriptures that it was not until after they ate it that they were even aware that they were naked

Click to expand...

But Katzpur dogs and cats, fish and birds, apes, chimpanzees and elephants are not aware they are naked! They have no trouble procreating.

or had any feelings of "shame" about being seen naked

Click to expand...

....and I'm sure if they were magically made aware of their nakedness (dogs and cats) they would feel no shame.

Really then, "awareness of nakedness" has nothing to do with the ability to procreate.

So then it does not follow that an awareness of nakedness, followed by "shame" of nakedness, awakens sexuality.

What did the shame mean? Not what it does today, by any means.
The shame, dear Katzpur, was a symptom of the original sin:
sudden SELF-awareness
sudden SELF-consciousness
due to sudden SELF-absorption.

Whereas before in their perfection they were indeed unselfconscious, that bite of the forbidden changed their nature from one of perfection (centered in God) to one of imperfection (centered in Self) in an instant.

Not sexual awareness, but awareness of oneself as apart from God
That is the important thing, our real status, we must acknowledge in order to agree with God.

"Original" sin, harbored in each human heart, is the sin of separation from God.
The symptoms of a sinful nature are sins.
So sexuality, created by God himself in its perfection, is without sin.

Katzpur said:

Of course He knew. Did I suggest that He didn't?

Click to expand...

No, but it shows that God set the whole thing up. And if HE set the whole thing up, why should WE be punished for it?

Well, make up your mind. Which is it? I thought you were an "atheist all the way." If God is negligent, that obviously means God exists.

Click to expand...

Oh, rubbish. I can also say that the Klingons are warlike, that hardly means that the Klingons exist!

Don't confuse a thing with the IDEA of a thing. learn to make the distinction between the two.

Would you be "negligent" if you left a bottle of water next to a man dying of thirst, knowing for a fact that he would pick it up and drink it? Since when does negligence have anything at all to do with how God set the scene in the Garden of Eden?

Click to expand...

Because he set the scene for something BAD to happen! It was so bad he punished us! Giving water to a thirsty man isn't bad.

The fact is that God set us up to do something bad, and then he punished us for it. If God is the one who provided everything in full knowledge that we would use it badly and he did nothing to stop us, then it is his fault, not ours. It's just the same as how a parent who leaves a gun out knowing their child will kill someone with it is at fault.

And, to make it very clear for you, I am referring to God as the fictional being he is. i refer to harry Potter and Frodo baggins in exactly the same way.

If I believed the Adam and Eve story to be more than an allegory I would indeed believe that God set up Adam and Eve. If the old chap in the sky was supposed to have created them, he should have known that when you tell anyone not to do something then they will go right ahead and do it! God should be standing trial for all the trouble he has caused!

gnostic said:

Chapter 1 make no mention of the Fall of Man or the Serpent's Temptation. Genesis 1 also make no reference to Adam's expulsion from the Garden. All this event, with the temptation and punishment is in Genesis 2. God gave them blessings to be fruitful and mulitply in Genesis 1, but Genesis 2 sees that this procreation as a punishment. He blessed them in 1, but cursed them in 2. That in itself is contradictory, as well as being illogical, unless He had no intention of keeping them in Paradise. Which one is it?

Click to expand...

From a non-religious point of view, Genesis 1 and 2 are two different versions of the same myth, i doubt that the original writers ever intended them to be read together - its an either/or scenario.

gnostic said:

That's why this so-called forbidden fruit and punishment, was all a setup from the beginning. God had no intention of letting them stay in Eden. He also had no intention of letting them become immortal, even if they didn't eat the fruit.

Click to expand...

My Gnostic understanding of the myth suggests that god (demiurge) would have allowed them to remain in Eden, in fact that's exactly what he wanted. He wanted blind, obedient slaves to worship and exult Him.

The problem was that he couldn't hide the tree of knowledge, the knowledge of the truth is always there for us to grasp. If he had the choice, I have no doubt that he would not have placed the tree there - but since the tree is just a symbol for an everpresent knowledge, he had little choice.

If it had not been for the serpent, humanity would not have eaten of the tree.

Also, the tree of life was present in the garden as well, but humanity could not eat of the tree of life without first eating of the tree of knowledge.
Note how the god of Eden panicked after they had gained knowledge, he immediately ejected them from the Garden out of fear that they would eat of the tree of life.
To me this implies that he had no choice but to place both trees in the Garden, because they represent everpresent concepts he would have liked hidden, but he could not hide.

If he had wanted Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge, he would not have lied about them dying if they did, and he would not have punished them or the serpent for the transgression.

Moon Woman said:

God did not, not, not build "shame" into the sex act....
It is we who equate (quite incorrectly) shame with sexuality.... To toss nakedness, shame, and sex into the mix is to do a great disservice to the subject of free will and the fall IMHO.

Click to expand...

You have obviously misinterpreted my remarks. I did not ever mean to suggest that God "built shame into the sex act." I was merely pointing out their lack of awareness of their sexuality. Regardless of the fact that the Bible does not actually say when they were first intimate with one another, it does clearly suggest that it was not until after they are of the forbidden fruit that they were aware of their nakedness. Genesis 3:7 states that "...the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked." To me, this suggests a lack of sexual maturity that came only after they ate of the fruit.

Properly translated it is a simple "first this happened, and then this happened" statement. IOW, "Jane's husband knew Jane, and she conceived". There is no implication that they were virgins at the time.

Click to expand...

I believe there is. Obviously we don't see eye to eye here.

Original sin has nothing to do with Adam and Eve having sex.

Click to expand...

God created them not only with the ability and freedom to have sex, but with the instruction to do so! As was pointed out earlier: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number."

Click to expand...

First of all, I don't even believe in "Original Sin," and I certainly don't believe it would have been sinful for Adam and Eve to have been intimate at any point, either before or after they ate the forbidden fruit. They were husband and wife from the beginning. Their "sin" (and I don't even believe it was a "sin", since it is impossible to sin without the knowledge of good and evil) had nothing whatsoever to do with sex. Yes, it is true that God instructed them to multiply and replenish the earth. I just don't think they knew how to go about doing so until they exercised their free will and ate of the fruit that would replace their innocence with knowledge.