• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The curse of the forbidden fruit.

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
I do see your point, and if it were a more modern writer, I could possibly agree with you assuming certain other things about the story, including context. But I don't think that the writer from that long ago understood modern psychology concepts.

Am I to assume that you believe virtually none of Genesis is literal, then? and if that is not the case, what is the method you are using to tell the difference between literal and allegorical?
Hi
I am trying to not let my belief interfere with the discussion. It really doesn't matter in the literary dissection.
If the writers of those times did not understand psychological concepts they sure inadvertently incorporated a lot of them into their stories anyway. To clarify i would be a literalist if i was pushed into a corner but i understand and can argue from other perspectives in if i need too.
Peace
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
I totally get the brain thing......:D

Had not considered that angle, but well, yes, that might have been the case. From my perspective (atheistic) it is an argument against the existence of the god, or at least against the supposed benevolence of the god. But if the god does exist, it could also be that the writer simply bungled the job, as you say. but what would that say about the trustworthiness of the Bible, then?

Got to hit the rack.....I will turn back into a pumpkin soon. :p
Hi
I have never read the account in the way you do so i would not say he "bungled" it.But i do understand your position and can not say that you are wrong (although i am not admitting to me being wrong either)....... I suppose it could have been spelled out clearer but that is not how the Bible rolls. On the trustworthiness of the Bible... i have found its hyperlinked nature, there are over 65000 cross references between the 66 books of the Bible, to be the key to discerning the meaning of the authors in the majority of cases.

It is the the juxtaposition between the existence and benevolence of God that i find interesting.
If you came to the conclusion that the Bible story ended in a good place for mankind would that not show the ultimate beneficence of God.I get that there is some stuff in the middle that gets messy and is hard to deal with, especially if you allow for the two sides to co-exist on the same planet, but the story does have a happily ever after ending.
Peace.
 
Last edited:

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
yes....knowledge of good and knowledge of evil. So before eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of either.
Hi

I've gone back to the beginning, i've been thinking.

If a person has no possible way of determining whether an action is good or bad, then it is wholly unjust to hold them accountable for taking an action. They did not possess this knowledge until after they ate of the fruit.

On reflection, and with my believers hat firmly on my head, i am not sure if the logical error that you have identified even exists.
I have been thinking about whether it matters if they knew what good and evil were or even if that part of the description was for them at all.
They were told not to eat of the tree and the consequences of disobedience ..... the name of the tree has more relevance to the descendants of Adam and Eve than to them. Once out from under Gods protection they were subject to choice and consequence and the tree as the cause of their expulsion becomes the gateway to experiential good and evil. The good and evil is tied to obedience and consequence. I do not see why God would be required to explain good and evil... being told not to touch it and the consequence of disobedience is enough. They were not choosing between good and evil the were choosing between obedience and disobedience. A Sovereign God reigning over an uncorrupted Universe does not need to explain himself to anyone.

Things do change though............Once we enter into history the God of the Bible always clearly lays out what he wants and the consequences of whatever choices are made....
Amos3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. I think there is some significance to that. The prophets were continually going around explaining the choices and consequences of a dizzying array of situations, both personal and geo/political. So it does seem that if God thought he needed to spell things out in detail he would have, he is sure not shy about making detailed declarations later on in the book.

When determining whether their action was good or bad they knew that they had been told death was the consequence of eating the fruit, the serpent told them that was a lie. I do not see how the "nature" of the tree has any bearing on whether they believe God or not, which is the fundemental issue.
"Do Not Eat From The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil for on the day you eat of it you will die" When determining what action to take it seems to me that the relevant information centers around whether God is telling the truth about the dying part.

Below is Eve's response to satan and she does not mention Good and Evil only that they were not to eat of the tree....
Genesis 3: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. It is satan who in the next line uses the knowledge of good and evil as an enticement to disobey.


Sorry if that's all a bit of a ramble i am trying to get it all straight in my head and am thinking it through as we go. I am sure you will find something that will spark another intense thought session. I actually took my dogs on a 6 km walk and rattled all this around in my head.
Peace
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Hi

I've gone back to the beginning, i've been thinking.

If a person has no possible way of determining whether an action is good or bad, then it is wholly unjust to hold them accountable for taking an action. They did not possess this knowledge until after they ate of the fruit.

On reflection, and with my believers hat firmly on my head, i am not sure if the logical error that you have identified even exists.
I have been thinking about whether it matters if they knew what good and evil were or even if that part of the description was for them at all.
They were told not to eat of the tree and the consequences of disobedience ..... the name of the tree has more relevance to the descendants of Adam and Eve than to them. Once out from under Gods protection they were subject to choice and consequence and the tree as the cause of their expulsion becomes the gateway to experiential good and evil. The good and evil is tied to obedience and consequence. I do not see why God would be required to explain good and evil... being told not to touch it and the consequence of disobedience is enough. They were not choosing between good and evil the were choosing between obedience and disobedience. A Sovereign God reigning over an uncorrupted Universe does not need to explain himself to anyone.

Things do change though............Once we enter into history the God of the Bible always clearly lays out what he wants and the consequences of whatever choices are made....
Amos3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. I think there is some significance to that. The prophets were continually going around explaining the choices and consequences of a dizzying array of situations, both personal and geo/political. So it does seem that if God thought he needed to spell things out in detail he would have, he is sure not shy about making detailed declarations later on in the book.

When determining whether their action was good or bad they knew that they had been told death was the consequence of eating the fruit, the serpent told them that was a lie. I do not see how the "nature" of the tree has any bearing on whether they believe God or not, which is the fundemental issue.
"Do Not Eat From The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil for on the day you eat of it you will die" When determining what action to take it seems to me that the relevant information centers around whether God is telling the truth about the dying part.

Below is Eve's response to satan and she does not mention Good and Evil only that they were not to eat of the tree....
Genesis 3: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. It is satan who in the next line uses the knowledge of good and evil as an enticement to disobey.


Sorry if that's all a bit of a ramble i am trying to get it all straight in my head and am thinking it through as we go. I am sure you will find something that will spark another intense thought session. I actually took my dogs on a 6 km walk and rattled all this around in my head.
Peace

Your first paragraph doesn't address the fundamental issue. It seems you are just introducing a new word (disobedience) to dodge the good v evil question. Is disobedience to god's commands good or was it evil? Was it neither? Adam and his sidekick didn't know....they had no knowledge of either of those concepts until they ate the fruit.. If it is not evil to disobey god, then Christians are wasting a lot of time praying, reading the bible, and having church pot lucks. They should be able to go about their business without consequence. so disobedience falls into the "evil" category, right? Otherwise, why the punishment???

But there was no such thing in then garden as death, right? Wasn't death something that was instituted as a punishment for the future crime of eating? How did they even know what death was? What example did they have?

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether god was telling the truth about death, or that the serpent was lying. The point is simply that they were punished (and all of mankind-which is another issue) for doing something that they could not know was either good nor evil, because until they ate of the fruit, they didn't know the difference.

As to the serpent mentioning the name of the tree and Eve not, I have no idea of what consequence that is. Adam was told it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by god.
Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

It's great to have this give and take. I grow so tired of the defensiveness and belligerence that flares up on this forums all the time. You grasp that I am not particularly interested in converting you to something or other, and don't question the sincerity of your beliefs. I am only pointing out that from an "outsider's" perspective, The Bible is fraught with issues.
The matter of slavery and genocide are also some ugly parts, but let's don't throw that into the mix, or we will still be having this conversation 20 years from now. :p:p:p
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
It seems you are just introducing a new word (disobedience) to dodge the good v evil question. Is disobedience to god's commands good or was it evil? Was it neither?
and if the disobedience was already in the mind and heart.....?

the 'fall' had already happened

but I don't believe that


the test was done to be sure Man would be that creature ….curious
even if death was a pending consequence

and we have become that creature
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Your first paragraph doesn't address the fundamental issue. It seems you are just introducing a new word (disobedience) to dodge the good v evil question. Is disobedience to god's commands good or was it evil? Was it neither? Adam and his sidekick didn't know....they had no knowledge of either of those concepts until they ate the fruit.. If it is not evil to disobey god, then Christians are wasting a lot of time praying, reading the bible, and having church pot lucks. They should be able to go about their business without consequence. so disobedience falls into the "evil" category, right? Otherwise, why the punishment???

But there was no such thing in then garden as death, right? Wasn't death something that was instituted as a punishment for the future crime of eating? How did they even know what death was? What example did they have?

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether god was telling the truth about death, or that the serpent was lying. The point is simply that they were punished (and all of mankind-which is another issue) for doing something that they could not know was either good nor evil, because until they ate of the fruit, they didn't know the difference.

As to the serpent mentioning the name of the tree and Eve not, I have no idea of what consequence that is. Adam was told it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by god.
Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

It's great to have this give and take. I grow so tired of the defensiveness and belligerence that flares up on this forums all the time. You grasp that I am not particularly interested in converting you to something or other, and don't question the sincerity of your beliefs. I am only pointing out that from an "outsider's" perspective, The Bible is fraught with issues.
The matter of slavery and genocide are also some ugly parts, but let's don't throw that into the mix, or we will still be having this conversation 20 years from now. :p:p:p
Hi
You asked me the other day if i thought this was all literal or allagorical .... i think i will expand on that a bit so you can maybe understand where i am coming from. I believe the story is true... i do not believe however that it is definitive word for word account of the actual events.

I have no problem if the author included the designation of the tree , as the knowledge of good and evil in Gen2:16 as foreshadowing for the events that occur in the next chapter. If God had said ..... 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of that tree you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." I have just removed the good and evil phrase that's all. Nothing really changes does it.
Does the creator not a the right to tell you that you can have everything except that one thing without explaining anymore than the consequence of disobedience?
Removing the Good and evil part of the account does not alter it in anyway that i can see and accords with Eve's declaration where she worded it exactly as i have above.
....................................................................
Again i am making an unwinnable point if forced into defending a word for word account of an obviously truncated account of events, really who can really prove anything. But i do believe nothing i have written is outlandish or slippery..... The recorded account was written in the mid 1000's and it was written in a literative style common to the ancient world with much poetic reference and foreshadowing of coming events.... as any good author would do. These were stories that were to be engrossing and i can well image an author naming the tree "the tree of knowledge of god and Evil" as a device to give the tree an ominous proportion. And as i have said the account means the same thing if you leave the offending phrase out altogether..
......................................................................

How did they even know what death was? What example did they have?
They lived amongst a functioning ecosystem.... animals die, insects die, vegetation dies.
........................................................................

It seems you are just introducing a new word (disobedience) to dodge the good v evil question.
That's a bit unfair. The story of the tree is a story of disobedience.... it was not a magic tree that gave some sort of metaphysical jolt of enlightenment. Disobedience got them chucked out of the garden and Gods protection and they were subject to the good and evil choices that they now had to make. Hence the tree becomes the tree of good and evil.
Is disobedience to god's commands good or was it evil?
If you go to the Hebrew you can easily switch out "good and evil" for "chaos and order." And if we rephrase your question in that light it is....
Is disobedience to god's commands order or was it chaos?
....................................................
You are supposing that the "
good and evil" bit is the key
I think that the "
you shall not eat of it " is the key.
................................................................
I'd love to do the slavery thing i know the subject very well but the problem is that the discussion is never done within the context of the Bible... it is always "If he's a good God why didn't he ban slavery outright for everyone across the planet" not allowing for the fact that the Biblical God can not step into His creation and dictate terms for ALL mankind.... refer back to the garden.
But the Biblical God does keep one family line and through this line steps back into history at the end and he rectifies the situation.

Buddah , Allah, Zues or some of the Mesopotamian gods had the theological room to have made universal pronouncments of that sort but they never did.
......................................................................
I still think though that Adam and Eve had conceptual knowledge of consequence (good and evil) but no experiential knowledge.
Peace.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Of course the story is mythical. Which is a good thing. The story paints God as being incompetent and immoral. It is best to look at it as a morality tale that tells one the importance of following God. But to believe it literally is both bad science and bad theology.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I still think though that Adam and Eve had conceptual knowledge of consequence (good and evil) but no experiential knowledge.

I agree. In a world where there are equal opposites to everything put in place by a perfectly balanced Creator, good and evil could be contrasted without ever having to experience the negative. Opposites are experienced every day in a thousand ways....some beneficial, some not. Some having consequences, some not. But the concept of opposites is clear.

The forbidden fruit was from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"......so if the concept of opposites was already in their understanding, but not in their experience, then this tree symbolized God's right to determine what was good and what was evil for them. Man in his current state doesn't seem to know where that line is. For some people good is bad and bad is good. This is I believe, a significant thing. Humans took God's sovereignty away from him by their disobedience and substituted their own due to the prompting of a lying snake who, in contrast to the Creator, had never done a thing for them. There was no excuse for the choices they made.

"The tree of life" was there in the garden too, to be partaken of at will apparently. It was the eviction from the garden and a barring of access to the tree of life that sealed the death sentence. Only one tree was off limits in the beginning....but when they disobeyed God's direct command, knowing full well the consequences, the prohibition shifted to the other tree. It was their only means of living forever. (Genesis 3:22-24) Death was now inevitable.

As for the "naked" thing.....? I believe that sin was an immediate awakening of the concept of all possible evils.....but the first thing they became aware of was the 'shame' of their naked state. Shame was a new experience because they had never had anything to be ashamed of before, and nakedness now awakened a concept of sexual sin, which, as we see in the OT, necessitated many strict rules pertaining to the use of the reproductive organs. The transmission of life was a sacred responsibility that was never to be abused.

There is so much in Genesis as you said, that is simple to the casual reader but peeling back the layers, we see something way more complex. It is way deeper than most people realize.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
I agree. In a world where there are equal opposites to everything put in place by a perfectly balanced Creator, good and evil could be contrasted without ever having to experience the negative. Opposites are experienced every day in a thousand ways....some beneficial, some not. Some having consequences, some not. But the concept of opposites is clear.

The forbidden fruit was from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"......so if the concept of opposites was already in their understanding, but not in their experience, then this tree symbolized God's right to determine what was good and what was evil for them. Man in his current state doesn't seem to know where that line is. For some people good is bad and bad is good. This is I believe, a significant thing. Humans took God's sovereignty away from him by their disobedience and substituted their own due to the prompting of a lying snake who, in contrast to the Creator, had never done a thing for them. There was no excuse for the choices they made.

"The tree of life" was there in the garden too, to be partaken of at will apparently. It was the eviction from the garden and a barring of access to the tree of life that sealed the death sentence. Only one tree was off limits in the beginning....but when they disobeyed God's direct command, knowing full well the consequences, the prohibition shifted to the other tree. It was their only means of living forever. (Genesis 3:22-24) Death was now inevitable.

As for the "naked" thing.....? I believe that sin was an immediate awakening of the concept of all possible evils.....but the first thing they became aware of was the 'shame' of their naked state. Shame was a new experience because they had never had anything to be ashamed of before, and nakedness now awakened a concept of sexual sin, which, as we see in the OT, necessitated many strict rules pertaining to the use of the reproductive organs. The transmission of life was a sacred responsibility that was never to be abused.

There is so much in Genesis as you said, that is simple to the casual reader but peeling back the layers, we see something way more complex. It is way deeper than most people realize.
Isn't "lying" consider evil? If they had knowledge of evil, then wouldn't they know themselves that the snake was lying? And they would know that disobedience is evil.

How I see it, when it comes to interpreting this story, a lot of people are using their knowledge of the results of the story and/or their knowledge of good and evil, to interpret the actions of Adam and eve.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Isn't "lying" consider evil? If they had knowledge of evil, then wouldn't they know themselves that the snake was lying? And they would know that disobedience is evil.

How I see it, when it comes to interpreting this story, a lot of people are using their knowledge of the results of the story and/or their knowledge of good and evil, to interpret the actions of Adam and eve.

If you understand the scenario as it played out, (using other scripture) you will see that satan was a "covering cherub" in the garden of Eden. (Ezekiel 28:13-15) He was right there observing everything that was transpiring. He was harboring ambitions about being a god and he knew that humans could possibly worship him as a being of superior power to themselves......all he had to do was separate them from their God and paint him in a bad light.

Adam had waited a long time for his mate, and that is why satan targeted the woman....she was the newer and less experienced of the two and he approached when she was alone. He cunningly planted a seed of doubt about the motivation of the Creator in connection with his command concerning the forbidden tree that he had claimed for himself whilst giving the humans access to every other tree. It was a small test of their respect for what belonged to Him and his generosity should have been enough to tell them that he would withhold nothing good from them.

The woman knew about God's command because she recited it back to him...Adam had taught her the most important command....but the seed of doubt was watered by the fact that the fruit looked good to eat and so when the devil lied to her about the penalty, she fell for it, just as he had hoped she would. Now when Adam came along, and she offered him the fruit, he had two choices....knowing full well the penalty, he should have refused, but it would have meant losing the mate he had waited so long for....

.....or he could join her and suffer the same fate. Adam was the target all along, but the devil used the woman to bait a trap for him. He divided Adam's loyalties and conquered him. "Divide and conquer" is a successful ploy used against an enemy even to this day.

The woman was deceived according to the apostle Paul....but Adam was not. (1 Timothy 2:14) That is why it is 'through the man that sin entered into the world'. (Romans 5:12)

The penalty applied because there was no excuse to disobey their rightful Sovereign. Its the same today if people think that God will not hold them to account for their actions. Its not as if he left them in any doubt about what he requires of his human creation.

All actions have consequences......we choose the action, we choose the outcome. Its that simple.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
I agree. In a world where there are equal opposites to everything put in place by a perfectly balanced Creator, good and evil could be contrasted without ever having to experience the negative. Opposites are experienced every day in a thousand ways....some beneficial, some not. Some having consequences, some not. But the concept of opposites is clear.

The forbidden fruit was from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"......so if the concept of opposites was already in their understanding, but not in their experience, then this tree symbolized God's right to determine what was good and what was evil for them. Man in his current state doesn't seem to know where that line is. For some people good is bad and bad is good. This is I believe, a significant thing. Humans took God's sovereignty away from him by their disobedience and substituted their own due to the prompting of a lying snake who, in contrast to the Creator, had never done a thing for them. There was no excuse for the choices they made.

"The tree of life" was there in the garden too, to be partaken of at will apparently. It was the eviction from the garden and a barring of access to the tree of life that sealed the death sentence. Only one tree was off limits in the beginning....but when they disobeyed God's direct command, knowing full well the consequences, the prohibition shifted to the other tree. It was their only means of living forever. (Genesis 3:22-24) Death was now inevitable.

As for the "naked" thing.....? I believe that sin was an immediate awakening of the concept of all possible evils.....but the first thing they became aware of was the 'shame' of their naked state. Shame was a new experience because they had never had anything to be ashamed of before, and nakedness now awakened a concept of sexual sin, which, as we see in the OT, necessitated many strict rules pertaining to the use of the reproductive organs. The transmission of life was a sacred responsibility that was never to be abused.

There is so much in Genesis as you said, that is simple to the casual reader but peeling back the layers, we see something way more complex. It is way deeper than most people realize.
Hi Deeje hope you're well.

I like this line, i wish i had said it, then this tree symbolized God's right to determine what was good and what was evil for them. i think that sometimes the tree is viewed as some sort of magical instrument that bestowed hidden knowledge, which is i suppose the very tack that satan took in his manipulation of Eve's niavate.

The nakedness i a gem of a line, it is funny how you can read over things and think you have them sorted and then see whole new levels in the most simple little seemingly throw away lines of prose. I get the sexual sin aspect of nakedness and that does have some relevance but that seems something that Jehovah slowly tightened his restrictions on. Some of the Paitriarchs were pretty loose guys. To the audience that Moses was addressing i think the idea of nakedness is more of vunerability to the elements and judgement by their peers, they were something "less" now which is why i think he recorded it the way he did. Unashamed when you are Gods friend, ashamed when turn from him. Protected then unprotected.

And His final gesture has really struck me as something special....
Gen3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Even though he had wiped his hands of them so to speak He still made cloths for them to replace the fig leaves they had stitched together. I'm sure that many would see this as very little comfort but i see it as something much deeper than that, i can't really explain it , it's something like Jehovah's Love for those two dopes leaking out in spite of his decision to cast them out.
Peace
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The nakedness i a gem of a line, it is funny how you can read over things and think you have them sorted and then see whole new levels in the most simple little seemingly throw away lines of prose. I get the sexual sin aspect of nakedness and that does have some relevance but that seems something that Jehovah slowly tightened his restrictions on. Some of the Paitriarchs were pretty loose guys. To the audience that Moses was addressing i think the idea of nakedness is more of vunerability to the elements and judgement by their peers, they were something "less" now which is why i think he recorded it the way he did. Unashamed when you are Gods friend, ashamed when turn from him. Protected then unprotected.

Not sure what Patriarchs were loose? Care to elaborate on who the guilty suspects were?

It is true that we see nakedness as vulnerability and its true that it has been used to humiliate people down through history, but if there was no shame there would be no vulnerability in the first place, from my logic. There is a reason why 'shame' was their first response to their sin. Covering up their reproductive parts was a natural response, so I wonder what that accomplished in their minds? Perhaps keeping nasty thoughts at bay? :shrug:

And His final gesture has really struck me as something special.... Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Even though he had wiped his hands of them so to speak He still made cloths for them to replace the fig leaves they had stitched together. I'm sure that many would see this as very little comfort but i see it as something much deeper than that, i can't really explain it , it's something like Jehovah's Love for those two dopes leaking out in spite of his decision to cast them out.

Since Eve had to 'become the mother of everyone living', God did not abandon them completely, though their punishment was severe....life would never be the same again. Instead of leisurely picking nice ripe fruit whenever they pleased of whatever variety they chose, now they had to become subsistence farmers trying to grow grain on cursed ground. Adam was told that he would "eat bread in the sweat of your face" having to cultivate soil that would yield very little, so it would have been a tough gig.

The clothing God provided was not only more modest than the fig leaves, but it would have offered physical protection from the "thorns and thistles" that grew wild outside the garden. Their new home was not very hospitable. But from those first sinful humans came the first righteous man...Abel...but there also came the first murderer....:( It didn't take long at all for sin to manifest itself in bloodshed.

God's purpose for mankind never changed and he allowed the first pair to fulfill part of his original mandate to "fill the earth"....the other part (subduing it) would have to wait until his purpose was complete. When he related the same mandate to Noah on coming out of the ark, that part was omitted.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Not sure what Patriarchs were loose? Care to elaborate on who the guilty suspects were?

It is true that we see nakedness as vulnerability and its true that it has been used to humiliate people down through history, but if there was no shame there would be no vulnerability in the first place, from my logic. There is a reason why 'shame' was their first response to their sin. Covering up their reproductive parts was a natural response, so I wonder what that accomplished in their minds? Perhaps keeping nasty thoughts at bay? :shrug:



Since Eve had to 'become the mother of everyone living', God did not abandon them completely, though their punishment was severe....life would never be the same again. Instead of leisurely picking nice ripe fruit whenever they pleased of whatever variety they chose, now they had to become subsistence farmers trying to grow grain on cursed ground. Adam was told that he would "eat bread in the sweat of your face" having to cultivate soil that would yield very little, so it would have been a tough gig.

The clothing God provided was not only more modest than the fig leaves, but it would have offered physical protection from the "thorns and thistles" that grew wild outside the garden. Their new home was not very hospitable. But from those first sinful humans came the first righteous man...Abel...but there also came the first murderer....:( It didn't take long at all for sin to manifest itself in bloodshed.

God's purpose for mankind never changed and he allowed the first pair to fulfill part of his original mandate to "fill the earth"....the other part (subduing it) would have to wait until his purpose was complete. When he related the same mandate to Noah on coming out of the ark, that part was omitted.
Hi
Not sure what Patriarchs were loose? Care to elaborate on who the guilty suspects were?

Their are few.. well of the big names we have Abraham knocking of his wifes maid and then multiple wives after Sarah dies.Lot and the incest thing.
Isaac seemed pretty cool but Jacob, what a scamp, Sisters as well as their maids. Judah, the tribal leader who would produce the messiah stopped on his travels to see what he thought was a hooker but turned out to be his daughter inlaw. That is why i think the sexual aspect of the fruit was not the main focus of Moses audience but more the concept that being in covenant with God makes one feel protected and secure and to loose Gods protection leaves you naked to the world.

The sexual laws come in with Moses, before that they had principles derived from the stories that they must have had from their Fathers , Joseph obviously extracted his morality from some knowledge of the Eden story, but not from the example of his own Father or Brothers it seems.

Also the tying the nakedness primarily to sex as the main idea has a definite catholic flavour... it's a church father thing that has hung around for way to long i think. See this is what i mean.......
Covering up their reproductive parts was a natural response, so I wonder what that accomplished in their minds? Perhaps keeping nasty thoughts at bay? :shrug:. They were a married couple,, married in the site of God literally.... sex between man and wife need involve no nasty thoughts and this little wedge gets hammered into the concept of sex being the original sin and we end up with 1500 years of christendoms sexual tyrany over the family.

It seems the whole sex thing, although given the divine imprint of one man and one woman at the time of Eden Jehovah took a series of steps over a couple of thousand years to domesticate his people enough to implement definitive laws written in stone. Jesus when he was on earth gave the final step in this sexual progression when he basically rescinded Jehovah's pressure relief valve of divorce by consent. Finally, 4000 years after Eden ... Jesus laid out what would be
the Christian standard.....one man and one woman and no divorce except for immorality.
Peace.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
I find it extraordinary that some people believe the Bible to be literally true.:rolleyes:
I find it extraordinary that some people believe the Bible to be literally true.

Some in this case equals hundreds of millions just to be fair.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I find it extraordinary that some people believe the Bible to be literally true.

Some in this case equals hundreds of millions just to be fair.
Not sure how you can quantify that, as many Christians believe the Bible to be at least partially (if not mostly) allegorical. Do we actually have any consensus on the total number of Biblical literalists?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not sure how you can quantify that, as many Christians believe the Bible to be at least partially (if not mostly) allegorical. Do we actually have any consensus on the total number of Biblical literalists?
Pew Research Polls seem to indicate a quite a few in the U.S., at least when it comes to the creation myths. Over ten percent but less than twenty of the overall population.I

Of course numbers alone is never a good reason to argue for something. It is the evidence that tells us that the stories are mythical.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Not sure how you can quantify that, as many Christians believe the Bible to be at least partially (if not mostly) allegorical. Do we actually have any consensus on the total number of Biblical literalists?
Hi
Would you include those who are not Literalist but believe it all to be the inspired word of God in the definition of literal beleivers. Then hundreds of millions isn't to outrageous a guess i think. Allegorical interpretations still adhere to divine authority with its wicked god so when jj50 was saying that some beleive i'm pretty sure she would lump them in as well.
Peace
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Well there you go 2000 000 000 claim to be christian 10% of that is 200 000 000.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well there you go 2000 000 000 claim to be christian 10% of that is 200 000 000.
My statistic was for the U.S. Christians only. Other countries do not have so many ignorant Christians. Their Christians tend to be better educated than ours.
 
Top