Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Kenny]

According to the Bible, ( Genesis 7:20 ) "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." If this were true, then no trees would've been able to survive such a deluge. Of course, any trees having survived beyond when alleged flood of biblical proportions occurred, demonstrates this story in the Bible is not based on actual history.

I disagree.

 

[Salvador]

I disagree.

I say I don't fault you for disagreeing there with what the Bible claims.

 

[nPeace]

The problem, as I see it, is that you are selecting those versus that only support your position... so let's amplify it. Additionally, before mankind or before earth... aren't they both before?

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,but was manifest in these last times for you,

Notice the word "before" the "foundation of the world".

Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

This one is translated "conceived" - in other words, before it was, she received the foundation. This is applied to her capacity.

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with mewhere I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

So, here the word "world" means cosmos:

Definition

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
   2. of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19
   N
   
   Notice the variety of applications.
   
   So, at most, we can have a viewpoint but we can hardly be dogmatic about this position. Regardless.. before still means before man and that could also include before God created the earth since He planned it all.

Thanks for that list.

I believe you are missing the point.
This has nothing to do with my position Ken We could both make that claim, but if it is my position, why can't you explain the scriptures?
Is it because you can see that it doesn't support your view?
The word before makes no difference either, because since the foundation of the world refers to Adam's offspring, Jesus was foreordained before that time - not before the earth, or Adam and Eve - but before Cain and Abel were conceived. See Genesis 3:15 for that ordination.

Since you don't seem to want to answer the question, I'll answer it.
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Luke 11:50, 51

Notice this text says from the foundation of the world.
It therefore identifies when the foundation of the world was laid.
Jesus associates the foundation of the world with Abel - the first redeemable human of the world of mankind.

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Hebrews 4:3

Notice this text says his work were finished again, from the foundation of the world.
So the laying of the foundation of the world, came after his creative works - after Eve, of course.

Therefore the foundation of the world being after God's creative works, allow for the Christ to be foreordained before the foundation of the world, yet after Adam and Eve.

Before Abel. After man. Not before man.
I am not sure any further clarity is needed for this.
Keeping with the scriptures does not allow for the variety you want. Sorry.

 

[Salvador]

Thank you. ' thought to be ' and are, does leave a gap in my mind.

The oldest Bristle Pine cone tree is dated with certainty to be older than 5,000 years; this according to its reliable age measurement from its annual growth tree ring count.

 

[nPeace]

According to the Bible, ( Genesis 7:20 ) "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." If this were true, then no trees would've been able to survive such a deluge. Of course, any trees having survived beyond when alleged flood of biblical proportions occurred, demonstrates this story in the Bible is not based on actual history.

No, it is true - The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
The elevated trees survived, as there were not covered for very long.
The flood account is not disproved by persons wishing for it to be - no evidence. In just the same way the resurrection of the Christ is not disproved, because persons don't want to believe it.

 

[nPeace]

The oldest Bristle Pine cone tree is dated with certainty to be older than 5,000 years; this according to its reliable age measurement from its annual growth tree ring count.

Yes @URAVIP2ME , we got that covered. All the trees did not die.

 

[Earthling]

• True... sometimes... but I enjoy reading John Gill who gives an Hebraic understanding:

she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat;
she took it off of the tree, and not only tasted of it, but ate of it; what quantity cannot be said, enough to break the divine law, and to incur the divine displeasure: so Sanchoniatho says F12, that Aeon (the same with Eve) found the way of taking food from trees: and gave also to her husband with her;
that he might eat as well as she, and partake of the same benefits and advantages she hoped to reap from hence; for no doubt it was of good will, and not ill will, that she gave it to him; and when she offered it to him, it is highly probable she made use of arguments with him, and pressed him hard to it, telling him what delicious food it was, as well as how useful it would be to him and her. The Jews infer from hence, that Adam was with her all the while, and heard the discourse between the serpent and her, yet did not interpose nor dissuade his wife from eating the fruit, and being prevailed upon by the arguments used; or however through a strong affection for his wife, that she might not die alone, he did as she had done: and he did eat;

It's not a bad interpretation, you make a pretty good case for it. I always use as much caution when considering Jewish tradition as well as Christian, but it certainly is possible.

To me it seems unlikely because he would have stopped her or at least protested.

 

[Salvador]

No, it is true - The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
The elevated trees survived, as there were not covered for very long.
The flood account is not disproved by persons wishing for it to be - no evidence. In just the same way the resurrection of the Christ is not disproved, because persons don't want to believe it.

Not only is there zero evidence of a global/near global flood with so very few human survivors, there are mountains of geological or fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence such a flood actually never happened. Is your God so deceptive to have made it appear with all such evidence as though such a flood never occurred contrary to what the Bible does claim did allegedly happen regarding a global/near global flood with so very few human survivors? If with God all things are possible, then is it possible he is a devious trickster? If he is indeed such a deceiver, then why on Earth should you trust him with anything he claims to be able to do in the Bible for you?

Imo, there likely used to be some sort of greater power with higher intelligence than that of today's highly evolved apes such as we humans presently bound to Earth; but I wouldn't venture putting any faith in such a deceptive God/god(s) concerned with fooling man.

The many deeply drilled ice-core samples exceeding 10,000 annual ice layers from Greenland or Antarctica are slabs of geological evidence there wasn't any global flooding within at least the last 10,000 years.

Reference: Wikipedia, Ice core Ice core - Wikipedia

Many native Americans have inherited the Q-M3 genetic mutation from an approximately 13,000-year-old ancestor whose such distinctive genetic trait is unfounded in anybody who isn't of native American descent.
Haplogroup Q-M3 is genetic evidence North/South America/the entire Earth was never actually repopulated by a small group of people from Eurasia such as by the alleged Noah's family after a supposedly global flood during the 3rd Millennium B.C.

Reference: Wikipedia, Haplogroup Q-M3 Haplogroup Q-M3 - Wikipedia

In other words, the entire Earth was apparently never actually repopulated from a small group of people outside of native American descent such as Noah's family after a global flood.

I believe Noah's Ark with the biblical flood is an interesting tale about spiritually cleansing rather than an actual account of an historical event that actually occurred

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for that list.

I believe you are missing the point.
This has nothing to do with my position Ken We could both make that claim, but if it is my position, why can't you explain the scriptures?
Is it because you can see that it doesn't support your view?
The word before makes no difference either, because since the foundation of the world refers to Adam's offspring, Jesus was foreordained before that time - not before the earth, or Adam and Eve - but before Cain and Abel were conceived. See Genesis 3:15 for that ordination.

Since you don't seem to want to answer the question, I'll answer it.
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Luke 11:50, 51

Notice this text says from the foundation of the world.
It therefore identifies when the foundation of the world was laid.
Jesus associates the foundation of the world with Abel - the first redeemable human of the world of mankind.

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Hebrews 4:3

Notice this text says his work were finished again, from the foundation of the world.
So the laying of the foundation of the world, came after his creative works - after Eve, of course.

Therefore the foundation of the world being after God's creative works, allow for the Christ to be foreordained before the foundation of the world, yet after Adam and Eve.

Before Abel. After man. Not before man.
I am not sure any further clarity is needed for this.
Keeping with the scriptures does not allow for the variety you want. Sorry.

But I did answer. With quotes too.

I said there were different applications for the same word. Just because it is "offspring" on one doesn't mean it is always offspring. The word "heart" has many application too, for the same word.

Can you imagine if my response to you and to the statements you just made was, "why didn't you understand what I was saying, 'Is it because you can see that it doesn't support your view?'"

Let's keep this sharing within the context that no one here is trying to be contentious or evading the questions.

Hebrews 4:3 has many applications. God calls those things that be not as though they are. "Entering into rest" is a faith statement even when you don't see what you believe for rest is a faith issue and not a "what you can see".. It is explained 8 versus later.

hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Notice that the out-of-rest is a position of unbelief or lack of faith. Entering into rest is a faith position and not "what you can see" position

So "before the foundation of the world" can also mean, as per definition:

1. a founding (laying down a foundation) (Strongs)

and world can mean:

1. the world, the universe
2. the circle of the earth, the earth (Strong)

Now... this isn't a "heaven or hell" issue so we can agree to disagree here.

What you haven't done is proven that my position is wrong. Not that yours is wrong. But there is hardly a definitive position on this issue for both can be plausible explanations.

 

[nPeace]

Not only is there zero evidence of a global/near global flood with so very few human survivors, there are mountains of geological or fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence such a flood actually never happened. Is your God so deceptive to have made it appear with all such evidence as though such a flood never occurred contrary to what the Bible does claim did allegedly happen regarding a global/near global flood with so very few human survivors? If with God all things are possible, then is it possible he is a devious trickster? If he is indeed such a deceiver, then why on Earth should you trust him with anything he claims to be able to do in the Bible for you?

Imo, there likely used to be some sort of greater power with higher intelligence than that of today's highly evolved apes such as we humans presently bound to Earth; but I wouldn't venture putting any faith in such a deceptive God/god(s) concerned with fooling man.

The many deeply drilled ice-core samples exceeding 10,000 annual ice layers from Greenland or Antarctica are slabs of geological evidence there wasn't any global flooding within at least the last 10,000 years.

Reference: Wikipedia, Ice core Ice core - Wikipedia

Many native Americans have inherited the Q-M3 genetic mutation from an approximately 13,000-year-old ancestor whose such distinctive genetic trait is unfounded in anybody who isn't of native American descent.
Haplogroup Q-M3 is genetic evidence North/South America/the entire Earth was never actually repopulated by a small group of people from Eurasia such as by the alleged Noah's family after a supposedly global flood during the 3rd Millennium B.C.

Reference: Wikipedia, Haplogroup Q-M3 Haplogroup Q-M3 - Wikipedia

In other words, the entire Earth was apparently never actually repopulated from a small group of people outside of native American descent such as Noah's family after a global flood.

I believe Noah's Ark with the biblical flood is an interesting tale about spiritually cleansing rather than an actual account of an historical event that actually occurred

I appreciate you have your beliefs. What I am saying is that wishing for it to be true, does not disprove anything. People claim there is no evidence for God too.

I also believe a lot of fairytales are being presented as science.

 

[nPeace]

But I did answer. With quotes too.

I said there were different applications for the same word. Just because it is "offspring" on one doesn't mean it is always offspring. The word "heart" has many application too, for the same word.

Can you imagine if my response to you and to the statements you just made was, "why didn't you understand what I was saying, 'Is it because you can see that it doesn't support your view?'"

Let's keep this sharing within the context that no one here is trying to be contentious or evading the questions.

Hebrews 4:3 has many applications. God calls those things that be not as though they are. "Entering into rest" is a faith statement even when you don't see what you believe for rest is a faith issue and not a "what you can see".. It is explained 8 versus later.

hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Notice that the out-of-rest is a position of unbelief or lack of faith. Entering into rest is a faith position and not "what you can see" position

So "before the foundation of the world" can also mean, as per definition:

1. a founding (laying down a foundation) (Strongs)

and world can mean:

1. the world, the universe
2. the circle of the earth, the earth (Strong)

Now... this isn't a "heaven or hell" issue so we can agree to disagree here.

What you haven't done is proven that my position is wrong. Not that yours is wrong. But there is hardly a definitive position on this issue for both can be plausible explanations.

Hmmm Maybe I am missing something, so I'll back up a bit.
Did you answer this?
How do you understand the texts at Luke 11:49-51. and Hebrews 4:3, if foundation of the world is referring to the beginning of the earth, or before all mankind?

What I mean is, did you answer it in relation to if foundation of the world in those texts can refer to mankind or earth?

 

[Kenny]

Hmmm Maybe I am missing something, so I'll back up a bit.
Did you answer this?
How do you understand the texts at Luke 11:49-51. and Hebrews 4:3, if foundation of the world is referring to the beginning of the earth, or before all mankind?

What I mean is, did you answer it in relation to if foundation of the world in those texts can refer to mankind or earth?

will get back to it. This is awesome in its presentation and I thank you!

 

[Ancient Soul]

@Ancient Soul ....
My “tactics of deceit”?

“Spaz out and spam” you?

I think you’ll find me pretty reasonable and calm...if you’ll be.

Any yet you spazzed out just because I doubt the Genesis myth and spammed me a mountain of Christian propaganda covering the entire bible.

Any you call that "reasonable"?

Geez...

I'm so glad I didn't go overboard and blasphemy that cross-dressing Magic Spirit Thingy you all keep on claiming you have.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I can not recall ever hearing a sermon based on the Adam and Eve story by an Anglican priest. In fact It is rare for Genesis to be used at all other than as examples of story telling, While it is certainly possible that some Anglicans believe Genesis to be factual, I would suggest it is becoming increasingly rare for them to do so.
For this reason alone I find it hard to take the questions asked in the OP seriously, as from any reasonable point of view Adam and Eve are fictional and represent an archetypal belief that there was a definable first pair of humans. and how sin came into the world. It is rather like a Proto- example of a just so story by Rudyard Kipling.

But in most Christian denominations the Genesis myth is a critical part of their beliefs, so drummed into their heads over and over by the priests. As this lays the groundwork for their concept of "original sin", which is basically trying to brainwash people into believing that no matter how good they really are, oh no you're not, you were "born evil" because your ancestors Adam and Eve committed a "sin" and that makes YOU a "sinner" also. And so without that, they cannot go on with the brainwashing that the ONLY was they can be "saved" from this "original sin" is to believe in the Jesus died for your (original) sins myth.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Well, that isn't entirely inaccurate. Eve was deceived by Satan using the serpent as a puppet. That was her motivation. Adam knew that Eve could very well be put to death for what she had done and he feared being alone again.

When discovered, notice what Adam said. He tried to blame it on God and Eve. "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree and so I ate." He knew he wasn't supposed to eat it.

So what's this Satan and serpent puppet act all about, was this on one of those TV talent shows?

Got any links to it, I'd like to check it out, sounds FUNNY.

 

[Jollybear]

I don’t think Eve was so impressed by God’s love. Have you tried to give birth to a child?

The really lucky one is the snake. Or serpent. I mean, the one who really started all this mess. The real, uncontroversial, villain in that story.

It has been condemned to walk on his belly. Which, given its morphology, does not look like much of a punishment.

Was it walking or flying before? Lol

Ciao

- viole

I hear ya.....my view on the serpent was he was not a snake as in the kind we think of. He was a "saraphim" which is a type of angelic being. Specifically, a saraphim is a flying fiery serpent or dragon like angel. This was one of the kind that rebelled against God and led a "third of the angels" with him.

Basically, the curse of crawling on his belly to the ground, is in essence saying he would be cursed to roam the earth and be rejected from living in heaven.

Thats my take on it.

Saraph - Hebrew Lexicon

 

[Ancient Soul]

I hear ya.....my view on the serpent was he was not a snake as in the kind we think of. He was a "saraphim" which is a type of angelic being. Specifically, a saraphim is a flying fiery serpent or dragon like angel. This was one of the kind that rebelled against God and led a "third of the angels" with him.

Basically, the curse of crawling on his belly to the ground, is in essence saying he would be cursed to roam the earth and be rejected from living in heaven.

Thats my take on it.

Saraph - Hebrew Lexicon

Your post raises a number of issues.

For starters, this is one of the many problems with the bible and the jesus myth. Being created by plagiarizing from so many pagan writings and then leaving in so many pagan references, that nobody knows exactly who or what they were referring to as to this "serpent" reference.

And just where in the bible does it state in the bible that "seraphim is a flying fiery serpent or dragon like angel"?

Then there's the claim that ALL Christians have the holy spirit that guides them to the ultimate understanding on what the bible means, yet here you are making all kinds of wild guesses. So is your holy spirit in the shop for repairs, or were you left out?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But in most Christian denominations the Genesis myth is a critical part of their beliefs, so drummed into their heads over and over by the priests. As this lays the groundwork for their concept of "original sin", which is basically trying to brainwash people into believing that no matter how good they really are, oh no you're not, you were "born evil" because your ancestors Adam and Eve committed a "sin" and that makes YOU a "sinner" also. And so without that, they cannot go on with the brainwashing that the ONLY was they can be "saved" from this "original sin" is to believe in the Jesus died for your (original) sins myth.

That is not really true in most of the world. 'Original' sin is a pretty much a discredited concept. It is true that we all sin, and are sinners. But it is our own un repented sin that we need to worry about, not some mythical sin from a religiously mythology out of prehistory.
The whole 'Salvation' concept is also very suspect and makes little sense in respect to Jesus own teachings.

 

[Jollybear]

Your post raises a number of issues.

For starters, this is one of the many problems with the bible and the jesus myth. Being created by plagiarizing from so many pagan writings and then leaving in so many pagan references, that nobody knows exactly who or what they were referring to as to this "serpent" reference.

I dont agree there was plagurizing going on. In fact, i dont even agree there was synchronizing going on. I think these things wer real accross all cultures and thus every culture wrote an account. Some things are similar, some things are different. Sorta like if me and ypu told our life story....there would be similarities, yet differences, but no plagurizing.

And just where in the bible does it state in the bible that "seraphim is a flying fiery serpent or dragon like angel"?

I gave a reference, why didnt you look at it?

Then there's the claim that ALL Christians have the holy spirit that guides them to the ultimate understanding on what the bible means, yet here you are making all kinds of wild guesses. So is your holy spirit in the shop for repairs, or were you left out?

Its not a guess, i came to this conclusion based on study. Not just study of the bible, but theres other extra biblical sources that reveal the serpent was an angel.

Saraph - Hebrew Lexicon

Revelation 20:2 "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."

Revelation 12:7 "Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back."

Heres a extra biblical source that shows satan took on different forms, like angel, charub and in possessed the snake.

"44]16.4 The serpent said, 'In what way or how can we expel him from the Garden?' Satan said to the serpent, 'Be you, in your form, a lyre for me and I will pronounce speech through your mouth, so that we may be able to help.

44]17.1 Then the two of them came to me and hung their feet around the wall of the Garden. When the angels ascended to the worship of the Lord, at that time Satan took on the form of an angel and began to praise God with angelic praises. I knelt down by the wall and attended to his praises.
[44]17.2a I looked and saw him in the likeness of an angel; when I looked again, I did not see him.
[44]17.2b Then he went and summoned the serpent and said to him, 'Arise, come to me so that I may enter into you and speak through your mouth as much as I will need say'.
[44]17.2c At that time the serpent became a lyre for him, and he came again to the wall of the Garden. He cried out and said, 'Oh, woman, you who are blind in this Garden of delight, arise come to me and I will say some words to you'."

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/vita/english/vita.arm.html#per2

Also one more thing. Theres no need to mock the Holy Spirit either. Also pertaining to me, im neither left out or welcomed in. Its simply a matter of i study, and when i talk, its me using the brain God (Holy Spirit) gave me to use.

Now, the Holy Spirit does his own talking. I dont talk for him, nor does he talk for me. Wer both two different persons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christians have some pretty strong beliefs concerning Adam and Eve and their role in getting mankind where we are today. How do you view Adam and Eve? As villains? Heros? Something in between? Did God know they were going to eat the forbidden fruit? What was His purpose in putting the tree there in the first place? What would have happened had Adam and Eve never eaten the forbidden fruit? What, if any, role would Jesus Christ have had in the world had the Fall never taken place?

These are just a few of many questions we could consider in talking about the events as recorded in Genesis and which have such a bearing on our lives today. All respectful discussion welcome.

I see the Adam and Eve story as an interesting retelling of the Prometheus legend, except with Prometheus/Adam being cast as the villain instead of as the hero.

I think the story works fine as a "just-so" story, not intended to be taken seriously, about why human life is the way it is. I think that the character names fit with this interpretation: having a man named "Man" and a woman named "Woman" sure makes it seem like they're intended as archetypes and not as literal individuals.

Taken seriously, though, the story has some disturbing implications, like collective punishment.

Another strange aspect of the story: it's Eve who takes the apple, but the story never mentions her being commanded not to take it. The story only mentions Adam being given that command - before Eve was even formed - and doesn't mention anything about him relaying that command to her.