Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Earthling]

If God allows adam to sin, then shows him mercy, then adam now knows Gods love. You cant know grace, love, mercy without having broken an order.

I can't agree with that. Jehovah created us out of love. Grace means undeserved kindness. We certainly didn't deserve to be created. I'm sure there would have been the opportunity for mercy without sin.

 

[Salvador]

In as much as the all-knowing god of Christianity knew how the whole Garden of Eden episode was going to play out, A&E were mere pawns in his game, playing out the role god had assigned them. From the very outset they were destined to eat the apple and bring original sin upon everyone who followed.

What a thoughtful god.

.

If I were to warn my naturally curious 5 year old nephew not to play with knives, and then were to leave him alone in a room with a sharp knife. I'd feel somewhat responsible if he were then to harm himself with this knife. I'd feel as though I were more sadistic than benevolent. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to the story of Adam and Eve being tempted by low lying forbidden fruit left there by God who should have known his warning not to eat the forbidden fruit would not suffice in keeping away His naturally curious children. This makes God sadistic rather than benevolent. So then, to say the least, your God isn't always rather thoughtful.

 

[Jollybear]

I can't agree with that. Jehovah created us out of love. Grace means undeserved kindness. We certainly didn't deserve to be created. I'm sure there would have been the opportunity for mercy without sin.

I agree with that. But, how can you have mercy without sin?

 

[blü 2]

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?

The Garden story in Genesis never ─ not once, not anywhere ─ mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death', the need for a redeemer &c. And God states clearly why [he] booted Adam and Eve out of the Garden:

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...​

That's nice and clear ─ AND no other reason is offered.

For those who think there was nonetheless original sin somehow somewhere anyway, consider this statement that sin is not heritable:

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
​

In fact the whole of Ezekiel 18 is devoted to making that point.

Original sin is a much later invention, I dare say by someone with depressive disorder.

 

[Jollybear]

If I were to warn my naturally curious 5 year old nephew not to play with knives, and then were to leave him alone in a room with a sharp knife. I'd feel somewhat responsible if he were then to harm himself with this knife. I'd feel as though I were more sadistic than benevolent. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to the story of Adam and Eve being tempted by low lying forbidden fruit left there by God who should have known his warning not to eat the forbidden fruit would not suffice in keeping away His naturally curious children. This makes God sadistic rather than benevolent. So then, to say the least, your God isn't always rather thoughtful.

How can you know if your son trusts you if you dont give him the opertunity to show it via obydience?

 

[Earthling]

If I were to warn my naturally curious 5 year old nephew not to play with knives, and then were to leave him alone in a room with a sharp knife. I'd feel somewhat responsible if he were then to harm himself with this knife. I'd feel as though I were more sadistic than benevolent. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to the story of Adam and Eve being tempted by low lying forbidden fruit left there by God who should have known his warning not to eat the forbidden fruit would not suffice in keeping away His naturally curious children. This makes God sadistic rather than benevolent. So then, to say the least, your God isn't always rather thoughtful.

Or, alternatively, your answers on the Bible aren't always rather thoughtful. The knives analogy isn't entirely accurate. A more thoughtful one, perhaps, would be, what if a father gave his son a piece of advice and the son rejected it. Then likely the father would have no choice but to let the child learn for himself, allowing him to ignore the advice. This would naturally result in hardship, not only for the son but of his children as well, though his children were not being punished as such, they would suffer the consequences nevertheless, so the father informed them of the situation and gave them a choice to rise above it.

If this father was an authority figure, like a judge, for example, he couldn't just erase the legal offense of his son, and if his grandchildren chose to follow in their father's footsteps that was their choice. Even if it resulted in their death. In all fairness he had warned them, and he must see justice done.

 

[Salvador]

How can you know if your son trusts you if you dont give him the opertunity to show it via obydience?

Adam and Eve were deceived and also didn't understand the consequences of their disobedience, otherwise they wouldn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, so then this was immoral for their loyalty to be tested. Right?

 

[Earthling]

I agree with that. But, how can you have mercy without sin?

Punishment and judgment are only a part of the meaning of the word mercy. From the Hebrew word ra·chamim′ and the Greek e′le·os. A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon defines it as meaning "to glow, to feel warm with tender emotion . . . to be compassionate." It can also mean sympathy or pity. (Isaiah 63:15-16 / Jeremiah 31:20)

 

[Earthling]

Adam and Eve were deceived and also didn't understand the consequences of their disobedience, otherwise they wouldn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, so then this was immoral for their loyalty to be tested. Right?

Only Eve was deceived. Adam sinned because he was aware that he very well might lose Eve and be alone again. (1 Timothy 2:14)

 

[Salvador]

Only Eve was deceived. Adam sinned because he was aware that he very well might lose Eve and be alone again. (1 Timothy 2:14)

What if Adam shunned Eve and said I'm telling God what you just did? ....

 

[Skwim]

There's no basis for that argument. It isn't Biblical.

I assume you're talking about god's omnipotence. If so, in as much as this is about the god of Abraham, whom a large majority of Christians believe is omnipotent (87%) I'm going to have to ignore your belief and go with them. Of course, if it isn't his omnipotence you're referring to, please advise.

.

 

[Earthling]

The Garden story in Genesis never ─ not once, not anywhere ─ mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death', the need for a redeemer &c. And God states clearly why [he] booted Adam and Eve out of the Garden:

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...​

​

And so you're suggesting that Adam was thrown out of Eden because he did exactly what the "us" did? Or possessed something they had? The need for a redeemer was mentioned 7 verses before that, Genesis 3:15.

To sin means to miss, as in this case, the mark set by God. Adam did this. Man fell in as the account reveals, death of man began then. It's all there, does it have to be spelled out to you?

That's nice and clear ─ AND no other reason is offered.

For those who think there was nonetheless original sin somehow somewhere anyway, consider this statement that sin is not heritable:

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
​

In fact the whole of Ezekiel 18 is devoted to making that point.

Original sin is a much later invention, I dare say by someone with depressive disorder.

That's just nonsense. How could you give a verse on sin and say it isn't about sin. That it was only invented later? Who doesn't die?

 

[Skwim]

If I were to warn my naturally curious 5 year old nephew not to play with knives, and then were to leave him alone in a room with a sharp knife. I'd feel somewhat responsible if he were then to harm himself with this knife. I'd feel as though I were more sadistic than benevolent.

How about if you warned him knowing he wasn't going to pay any attention to you? What would you be then?

This hypothetical scenario is analogous to the story of Adam and Eve being tempted by low lying forbidden fruit left there by God who should have known his warning not to eat the forbidden fruit would not suffice in keeping away His naturally curious children.

No it isn't analogous, because in your scenario you have the hopeful expectation that your warning may have an effect. In the A&E scenario god knows his "warning" won't have any effect. He knows A&E will be eating that apple.

This makes God sadistic rather than benevolent. So then, to say the least, your God isn't always rather thoughtful.

Bingo, In fact, I'd say he isn't in the same ball park as thoughtful. Oh, yes, it isn't my god, but the god of Christians and Jews. I'm agnostic.

.

 

[Katzpur]

The Biblical story of creation is false, because as I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.

Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Of course, the Bible is wrong; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

None of this really matters a great deal to me -- in terms of the timeline, that is. Regardless of how long human-like creatures have been around, for the purpose of this discussion, I'm just going to focus on Adam and Eve as being the first to have been created in God's image. I basically started this thread in order to discuss Adam's and Eve's disobedience and expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

My understanding of the doctrine of "Original Sin" as taught by most of Christianity is that it explains how we are all born as bearing the guilt for something Adam did (whenever this may have happened) and that we are therefore deserving of eternal damnation from the instant we draw our first breath. I don't buy into that at all.

 

[Earthling]

What if Adam shunned Eve and said I'm telling God what you just did? ....

I remember that song! I like the video. However, I can't understand a word of German. You'll have to translate if you want to make a point I can grasp.

Also, a very interesting question! Adam was head. He had authority, seniority, and a missing rib . . . and since Eve was deceived had Adam done that things would likely have been different. Do I know exactly how? NINE!

OK, I gotta get a translation to the song . . .

You, you hate
You hate me
You, you hate
You hate me
You, you hate
You hate me
You, you hate
You hate me

[Refrain]
You, you hate
You hate me, you hate me
You hate me to say, you hate me to say
You hate me to say and I did not obey

[Verse]
Will you until death does sever
Be upright to her forever?
Never, never!
Will you until death does sever
Be upright to her forever?
Never, never!

[Pre-Refrain]
Du, du hast
Du hast mich
Du, du hast
Du hast mich
Du, du hast

Another translation sounds more accurate to me . . .

(4x)
You
You have
You have me

You
You have
You have me
You have me
You asked me
You asked me
You asked me
And I said nothing

(Chorus 1) (2x)
Do you want until death does you part
Be faithful all your days
NO! (2x)

(2x)
You
You have
You have me

You
You have
You have me
You have me
You asked me
You asked me
You asked me
And I said nothing

(Chorus 2)
Do you want until death does you part
Be faithful all your days
NO! (2x)

Do you want until death that does you part
Love her even in bad days
NO! (2x)

(Chorus 3)
Do you want until death does you part
Be faithful all your days
NO! (2x)

 

[Salvador]

None of this really matters a great deal to me -- in terms of the timeline, that is. Regardless of how long human-like creatures have been around, for the purpose of this discussion, I'm just going to focus on Adam and Eve as being the first to have been created in God's image. I basically started this thread in order to discuss Adam's and Eve's disobedience and expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

My understanding of the doctrine of "Original Sin" as taught by most of Christianity is that it explains how we are all born as bearing the guilt for something Adam did (whenever this may have happened) and that we are therefore deserving of eternal damnation from the instant we draw our first breath. I don't buy into that at all.

What's your thoughts on what would have happened if Adam were to have shunned Eve for eating the forbidden fruit rather than Adam sharing fault with Eve?

 

[Earthling]

I assume you're talking about god's omnipotence. If so, in as much as this is about the god of Abraham, whom a large majority of Christians believe is omnipotent (87%) I'm going to have to ignore your belief and go with them. Of course, if it isn't his omnipotence you're referring to, please advise.

.

I'm confused. Are you not a man of science? You evaluate evidence not consensus? Whether or not I believe in omnipotence of God would depend upon your definition. If you mean by it that God can do whatever he wants within his own sense of truth, justice etc. then yes. If you mean the exaggerated religious sense of, well, basically Superman and Santee Clause, then no.

And I wouldn't put much faith, shall I say, in what the majority of Christians believe if I were you. You'de be fighting a losing battle in the debate arena if there were anyone present who knew better, which, by the way, you should.

And it wasn't an apple, no one knows what it was but it was likely a pomegranate.

 

[Katzpur]

LOL... I'm glad I only put one subject... otherwise we would have a compendium.

Of course, we can only "guess" as to why since it doesn't say. But here is my take.

Thank you for your take. Here are my comments on it...

1) Love has to be a free-will choice. IMO. Otherwise it is an obligation. My wife knows I love her by the fact that with thousands of choices, so to speak, I chose her. If she were the only person on earth, she could potentially say "Do you REALLY love me?"

I basically agree. But I would also add the fact that neither you nor your wife would really know what love even was if there was not also the absence of love. If you had never been sick a day in your life and had never even been able to conceive of the idea of poor health, would you even realize that you were healthy? If nothing had ever happened in your life to make you sad, would you truly appreciate happiness? Without disappointment and failure, satisfaction would be essentially meaningless. In other words, what is "good" if there is nothing with which to compare it?

2) Was He powerless to keep it from happening? It depends on what one means. Should one stop every bad thing that happens? I think of the child who always gets rescued and never suffers consequences. Ends up in jail, usually. The fact that He fixes all things in the end, to me it says He is powerful enough.

Okay, but the issue is whether there's any purpose for negative consequences if what caused them didn't have to happen in the first place. So, to me, the fact that God let things play out as they did, rather than prevent them from happening in the first place has got to be significant.

3) Why wouldn't He stop it? I believe that if He had He would be submitted to the Father of Lies. If God said, "I give you complete dominion over every living think" and then turns around and takes the dominion away, He would have lied (which He doesn't).

Could you try restating this. I'm a little bit confused as to what you're saying

3) Misery? Yes, there is misery. But, if eternity exists, what is a 100 year misery in light of eternity? A pimple of time. And, again, misery? Compare my misery with all the Jesus went through for me, my misery pales in comparison. I think Paul had it right when he said "light affliction".

I agree. I'm just repeating what I've heard a lot of Christians say, i.e. that if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed, we'd all be living blissfully in Eden today. There would be no suffering of any kind, no hardships, no tragedies. Everything would be perfect. But thanks to Adam and Eve, we're all screwed.

4) Scripture says Adam disobeyed, so I am not convinced it was a deal impossible to refuse. As I view it, Adam had authority and just decided not to exercise it. Like a child that is in control at the grocery store because the parent didn't want to exercise their authority.

Okay, I think I may have just had an "aha! moment." Does this tie to your comments that I said confused me? Are you saying that Adam had "complete dominion" over Satan but chose to relinquish it? That's an interesting thought, if that's what you're saying. I've never really given that any thought before.

5) Tree? I always wondered, if you have all authority and the whole of the Garden, why is the Tree and issue? Back to a marriage, "Ken, you can't have other women". Should I scream "WHYYYYYYYYYY??????" Does that mean "It's an offer I can't refuse to have more women?" Or is it an issue of love.

I think the tree is an issue for the simple reason that if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from it, things would have turned out a lot differently than they did.

Don't think there is greater good to be derived from "the Fall" other than we all have the choice to love or not to love, and "that is the question". LOL Almost didn't want to say that it is so overused but, what the hay, I'm 64.

I think I'm going to hold off on commenting on this for the time being. I do have some thoughts on it, but they can wait.

 

[Jollybear]

Punishment and judgment are only a part of the meaning of the word mercy. From the Hebrew word ra·chamim′ and the Greek e′le·os. A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon defines it as meaning "to glow, to feel warm with tender emotion . . . to be compassionate." It can also mean sympathy or pity. (Isaiah 63:15-16 / Jeremiah 31:20)

Ok.....so, mercy and forgiveness are different.

I gauss ill replace the word mercy with forgiveness. Without sin, adam would not know the forgiveness of God.

 

[blü 2]

And so you're suggesting that Adam was thrown out of Eden because he did exactly what the "us" did?

Read the text yourself. God states his reasons for expelling Adam and friend from the Garden ─ lest Adam get to live forever. At no point does God offer any other reason.

Or possessed something they had?

The text has God say he fears they'll get to live forever and become like him, so he expels them. That is, he possesses something that they do not possess.

The need for a redeemer was mentioned 7 verses before that, Genesis 3:15.

With respect, I don't see that verse calling for a redeemer. And if it does, then it calls for a redeemer for the snake, not for anyone else ─ an interesting theology, that.

To sin means to miss, as in this case, the mark set by God. Adam did this.

The text gives you no support for that. (Nor should it ─ the ideas you mention are from many centuries later.) It makes no mention of missing, sinning, &c. Instead it has God state clearly that he's expelling them because he doesn't want them to live forever and become like him.

Man fell in as the account reveals, death of man began then.

You simply aren't reading what the text says. I repeat, the text makes no mention of sin, original sin, the Fall, death entering the world, 'spiritual death' or anything of the kind. If you disagree, quote me the words that say those things.

And reconcile them with Ezekiel 18:20 and the rest of Ezekiel 18, where it's clear stated that each is responsible for his or her own sin, and is NOT responsible for the sin (if any) of his ancestors.

It's all there, does it have to be spelled out to you?

It's all there. I've already spelt it out for you.

That's just nonsense.

In that case don't complain to me. Take it up with Zeke.

How could you give a verse on sin and say it isn't about sin. That it was only invented later? Who doesn't die?

Dear oh dear. Okay, I'll spell this out for you too.

The Garden story never mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of man. You know that because you've reread the text with a clear mind, laying aside what other people have told you it should say.

The idea of original sin is much later theology. That doctrine is expressly contradicted by the whole of chapter 18 of Ezekiel, which I trust you've now read in full. I cited one verse which (like the rest of it) makes it perfectly clear that sin is not inherited. Therefore the Tanakh expressly rejects the notion of original sin.

Got it?