The Garden of Eden

[RestlessSoul]

Christian view yes?

I don’t know tbh. Was certainly John Milton’s, but whether it conforms with mainstream Christian doctrine, I couldn’t say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Christian view yes?

I see that viewpoint pertaining now -- in a certain sense -- naturally some do not believe in God and the account about Adam and Eve setting themselves against God,, nevertheless, humanity itself is, as far as I am concerned, completely lost for the most part.

 

[GoodAttention]

I see that viewpoint pertaining now -- in a certain sense -- naturally some do not believe in God and the account about Adam and Eve setting themselves against God,, nevertheless, humanity itself is, as far as I am concerned, completely lost for the most part.

What I find interesting is, original sin was a concept that was derived many centuries after Christ, so I don't believe the church fathers thought in this way, and certainly not Paul, who was talking more about peoples current sin (at the time).

 

[jimb]

What I find interesting is, original sin was a concept that was derived many centuries after Christ, so I don't believe the church fathers thought in this way, and certainly not Paul, who was talking more about peoples current sin (at the time).

Genesis was written long before the New Testament. Original sin was established thousands of years earlier.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I find interesting is, original sin was a concept that was derived many centuries after Christ, so I don't believe the church fathers thought in this way, and certainly not Paul, who was talking more about peoples current sin (at the time).

Not sure how others view the "original sin," but to me it is clear that Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin. And as a result sin was thus passed on to their offspring.

 

[GoodAttention]

Genesis was written long before the New Testament. Original sin was established thousands of years earlier.

Have you asked a Jewish person what they think?

 

[Balthazzar]

Huh? When you say that "God would not have wanted people to know," do you mean know about good and evil? Here's what God said:

So God did not want Adam and Eve to know about good and evil. And what about God's reaction when he found out that Adam and Eve had both eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge as described in Genesis 3:8-19? God sounds mad.

Ok, so there are things we tell our kids not to do when younger. Sex for example. Maturity is typically preferred. So, no God did not want them to eat of that specific "tree". They were young, apparently but ... They did anyway and they were told what would happen. Child birth will hurt. Monthly cycles would at this point have been evident due to the pregnancy, and they were advised of the work that would be required from them to raise their family on their own. They were required to leave home or rather the community they resided in. I'm guessing a multi-family unit, although it is not explicitly stated in the text I'm accustomed to reading.

The cursed serpent? Go figure ... they were told to go, to be fruitful, and to multiply. The seed and bruised head seem evident enough as well. I know this isn't taught in Sunday school to the kids, but the gist is they were not ready, did it anyway, and were about to found out why they were advised against it. Growing up isn't as easy as living at home with mom and pops. That, and childbirth is painful.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What I find interesting is, original sin was a concept that was derived many centuries after Christ, so I don't believe the church fathers thought in this way, and certainly not Paul, who was talking more about peoples current sin (at the time).

"Original Sin" is based on Paul's idea of "Sinful Nature." But it adds to it. Paul's idea was that because of the Garden of Eden, human nature includes an inclination to sin. But Augustine went farther than that. He believe that the GUILT of Adam's sin was passed on to all humanity, that literally every person born sinned when Adam sinned. That even a newborn baby who has never done any harm, is a sinner deserving of hell. This idea was adopted by almost every Christian denomination. Only recently in history have some begun to rebel against it. For example, the McGuffey Readers were first published in 1836, and were popular in Protestant schools through the early 20th century. One of the things children read was "In Adam's fall, so sinned we all."

 

[blü 2]

Interesting thing is, there is no Biblical reason to think God would not have wanted people to know. People could have asked anything directly from God. Also, it is the serpent, who lied, who told that people will know by eating the fruit.

No, in the Garden story the snake speaks only the truth ─ "you will not die" ─ and it's God who, shall we say, misspeaks ("in the day that you eat of it you shall die").

And nowhere does it say A&E could have anything just by asking. Had they asked for the fruit of either of the relevant trees, they would have been denied, for instance.

But what I find really annoying is the Christian view that the eating of the fruit was 'the first sin'. Obviously if you've been denied any knowledge of good and evil ─ as A&E very expressly were ─ it's impossible for you to form an intention to do wrong, hence it's impossible for you to sin.

And perhaps the overarching point is that it's only a story, a folktale, and that nothing of the kind could have happened or did happen in human history. Humanity is NOT in fact 'fallen', and does NOT in fact need 'redemption', only a lot of improvement.

 

[GoodAttention]

Not sure how others view the "original sin," but to me it is clear that Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin. And as a result sin was thus passed on to their offspring.

Sure, you accept the church interpretation. I can see why you do, but I don't agree.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure, you accept the church interpretation. I can see why you do, but I don't agree.

I believe I am accepting what the Bible says. Sin was passed on to humans from Adam. But you bring up an interesting point. To my mind at least. Notice what the Bible says "he who commits sin comes of the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the first. It was for this the Son of God made his appearance, that he might break up the Devil’s work." So before Adam and Eve sinned the Bible says the Devil sinned. (1 John 3:8) Interesting point.

 

[GoodAttention]

I believe I am accepting what the Bible says. Sin was passed on to humans from Adam. But you bring up an interesting point. To my mind at least. Notice what the Bible says "he who commits sin comes of the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the first. It was for this the Son of God made his appearance, that he might break up the Devil’s work." So before Adam and Eve sinned the Bible says the Devil sinned. (1 John 3:8) Interesting point.

Yes, but this is anachronistic, meaning the idea of a devil is applied retrospectively as the one who caused Adam to sin.

This is also a Christian interpretation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but this is anachronistic, meaning the idea of a devil is applied retrospectively as the one who caused Adam to sin.

This is also a Christian interpretation.

If I look at it that way, I'd say it was a commentary and truthful at that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but this is anachronistic, meaning the idea of a devil is applied retrospectively as the one who caused Adam to sin.

This is also a Christian interpretation.

Yes, it certainly is a Christian belief, that the devil caused by deception Eve to sin and by extension, Adam.

 

[1213]

No, in the Garden story the snake speaks only the truth ─ "you will not die" ─

Are they not dead? I think they are, even if the death took relatively long time.

And nowhere does it say A&E could have anything just by asking.

The story tells God was with them. That means they could have asked anything from him.

But what I find really annoying is the Christian view that the eating of the fruit was 'the first sin'.

The sin was that they rejected God.

Obviously if you've been denied any knowledge of good and evil ─ as A&E very expressly were ─

There is no Biblical reason to say knowledge of evil and good was denied. It was only told they should not eat from the tree.

...does NOT in fact need 'redemption', only a lot of improvement.

I don't see any difference in that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are they not dead? I think they are, even if the death took relatively long time.

The story tells God was with them. That means they could have asked anything from him.

Good point because eating from that tree was (1) prompted by Satan the Devil, and (2) did show that Eve wanted to do things without consulting with God. So in a way she got what she wanted.

 

[blü 2]

[

Are they not dead? I think they are, even if the death took relatively long time.

The snake is referring to God's statement to Adam (as reported to Eve) that if they eat the fruit they will die the same day ─ not that they will never die. God never promises A&E immortality; rather the only reason [he] expels them from the Garden, clearly stated in Genesis 3:22-23, is to prevent them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and become immortal like [him].
[

The story tells God was with them. That means they could have asked anything from him.

But they didn't, presumably because either they didn't know they could, or they knew they couldn't.
[

The sin was that they rejected God.

As I've pointed out continually, God had denied A&E the knowledge of good and evil.
Therefore it was not possible for them to form an intention to do evil.
Therefore at the time they each ate the fruit, they were incapable of sin.

And sin is NEVER mentioned, not even once, in the Garden story.
[

There is no Biblical reason to say knowledge of evil and good was denied. It was only told they should not eat from the tree.

Of course there is. God expressly forbids Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ─ Genesis 2:16-17. Why in your view would God say that, if the tree was not the key to knowing good and evil? Eating the fruit reveals that knowledge to them ─ Genesis 3:7 ─ and God realizes that they now have knowledge of good and evil as a result ─ Genesis 3:8-12.

Might I suggest you carefully read Genesis 2 & 3, note that the Snake speaks only the truth, and also note that sin is never mentioned, a Fall of Man is never mentioned or implied, there is nothing of the kind there.

And bear in mind that it's only a folktale, and has no basis in history.

 

[Muffled]

Extreme circular reasoning without independent evidence.

Yes, based on belief in ancient tribal literature without provenance and no independent evidence provided,

I believe I am an eyewitness of God.

 

[Muffled]

Because you are a fundamentalist who takes the whole bible literally, even when it is clearly figurative.

The creation story of the Navajo talks about an ascent through four different worlds, an insect world, a blue world with various animals, a yellow world of birds, and the fourth world, our world. There, First Man and First Woman were created, along with the Holy People.

I'm quite certain that you immediately recognize the genre as creation myth. Genesis 1 is also easily recognized as a creation myth for all the same reasons. The only people who think it is history are those who have difficulty managing figurative language and genres, and those raised in a literalist sect where everyone they know takes it literally.

I believe it is contrary to the text and what God tells me personally to see the Bible as figurative.

 

[Muffled]

My view has changed since contemplation and I do consider it closer to natural history than I do allegory.


Sure.

But this misses the point since the absolute and accurate location of the rivers themselves is not important, what is far, far, more important are the three ancient civilizations that had developed and existed along these river systems, being the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Indus Valley, at the time Adam left the Garden East of Eden.

I thought the Indus valley only goes back to 2500 BC while the Garden of Eden appears to be before 4000 BC.