Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Earthling]

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.

He wouldn't need to.

Of course, you can still use the term mercy as you were, but not exclusively in the aforementioned context.

 

[Jollybear]

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?

Hmmmm im thinkin to hard now. My brain is contorting.

True, they was decieved, but, they did still distrust Gods order and thus chose to trust the snakes suggestion.

God did tell them they would die. The snake said they would not die. So, it appears they understood what this thing called "die" was. It was the oposite of "life" that they currently had.

 

[Katzpur]

I've written quite a bit on this subject on these forums and I've come to the logical conclusion that I'm talking to the wind. Everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, have formed their opinions on the subject and care little what anyone, perhaps especially myself, have to say about it.

I will answer your questions as best, and as briefly as I can.

I'm pretty sure we've all come to pretty much that same conclusion -- that we've got the answers figured out but that nobody wants to hear them.

God didn't know they were going to eat, or touch, by the way, the fruit of the tree, but I'm pretty sure he knew it was a possibility.

I'm pretty sure He did know it was a possibility. I have two wonderful little dogs who are the light of my life. They're typically pretty well-behaved, but if I were to put a couple of nice juicy steaks on my kitchen floor, walk out of the room and let the dogs in, those two steaks would disappear faster than the speed of light. I know this because I know my dogs. And I'm 100% positive that God knew Adam and Eve even better than I know my dogs.

The purpose of the tree was to symbolize Jehovah's sovereignty. It was a reminder to Adam and his offspring, had he not sinned, that for a certain amount of time the Bible calls the seventh day of God's rest, that man needed the wisdom and guidance of their creator until they, like the angels before them, matured to the point where they were aware of this.

Every time somebody tells me that one thing symbolizes another thing, I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Obviously (at least to me), not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally and there is truly a fair amount of symbolism in its pages. I'm just not sure how you came up with your idea that the tree was supposed to symbolize Jehovah's sovereignty. To me, it makes a lot more sense to believe that it symbolizes knowledge in general and an appreciation for the fact that all things must have their opposites -- good and evil, pleasure and pain, sickness and health, darkness and light, etc.

What would have happened had they not eaten the fruit? That's the most interesting question you could ask, I personally think. Consider that the angel who had been appointed their protector, later known as Satan, had matured and knew better but still sinned. So eventually what would have happened if we, like David and then Paul alluded to, "entered into God's rest" and then sinned? I would presume that under those circumstances we would individually be destroyed rather than causing the death of all of those who would follow because we would, as a group, know better. For example, Satan sinned but only those angels who followed him are going to be destroyed, not all of them inheriting sin as we did. Of course Satan wasn't the first, nor had he offspring.

Huh? Satan was appointed as Adam's and Eve's protector? That's a new one on me! And I don't for one minute believe that we inherited sin. We, as humans, may have inherited the propensity to sin, but the idea that we were sinners at birth is not even the slightest bit logical to me. We sin when we willfully disobey God or our own conscience. We don't sin by being born.

Had they not eaten the sacrifice of Christ Jesus wouldn't have been necessary.

Agreed. But where would all of us have been? Would all of the billions of people who have ever been born be living happily ever after in the Garden of Eden?

 

[Axe Elf]

These are all topics that I could easily explain--as I have on several occasions before--but given the quality of the responses in this thread and the responses to my explanations in other threads, it seems probable that I would be wasting my time again.

I'll limit myself to answering the OP's question as to how to view Adam and Eve. A&E are most properly viewed as avatars for mankind in a parable that explains how mankind is fundamentally separated from God by nature.

 

[Salvador]

Hmmmm im thinkin to hard now. My brain is contorting.

True, they was decieved, but, they did still distrust Gods order and thus chose to trust the snakes suggestion.

God did tell them they would die. The snake said they would not die. So, it appears they understood what this thing called "die" was. It was the oposite of "life" that they currently had.

What are your thoughts about what would have happened if Adam had shunned Eve for eating the forbidden fruit rather than sharing fault with her?

 

[Jollybear]

What are your thoughts about what would have happened if Adam had shunned Eve for eating the forbidden fruit rather than sharing fault with her?

If he shunned her, as in break up with her? Then they would not have had kids. Then....no one would be here. Well, God would have probably put some more mud on his vase and made another pair of humans.

 

[Katzpur]

My view is that the story is not meant to be taken literally but symbolically. This is how I approach it. This might seem odd, weird even, but it works for me:

Hey, if that's how you want to see it, you're entitled to do so.

As humans evolved, they were once ignorant of polarities of right and wrong, good and evil because their intellects were not evolved enough. At some point as evolution continued, the intellect became aware of polarities. The former state of ignorance was ended and they were now troubled by such differences.

Despite the fact that I probably take a more literal approach to the story than you do, I think there is a great deal of truth in this statement.

 

[Katzpur]

So, when did the Adam and Eve creation happen? Did it happen before or after these civilizations that occupy pre-history? So far, Archeologists seem intent upon the idea that all this happened around 12,000 or so years ago. What was the lesson of the Creation and Adam and Eve? Does the "War in the Heavens?" occupy that unexplained time? I've seen no admonishment to avoid trying to explore our pre-history.

This is a tricky question. Were Adam and Eve the first humans? I don't think so, but I do think they were the first to have a human conscience and the ability to make choices based on what their consciences told them. I find exploring our pre-history to be quite interesting at times. Of course, I realize it's all just guesswork, but when the Bible says, "In the beginning..." it's talking about the "beginning" of the story as it pertains to us. It has nothing to do with the events which may have transpired before "the beginning," before the cock started ticking, so to speak. If God has been around for eternity, then it is entirely logical to assume that He was doing something or other prior to "the beginning."

In many Christian denominations I've experienced, their Creation theology centers around Eve's weakness and gullibility causes her to be disobedient and sin FIRST. At times, it seems that Adam's disobedience is almost secondary. And, since Creation, some men have continued to carry that punitive phase on for how many thousand years? I like the Mormon take that it was necessary for humans to progress.

I think it was absolutely necessary, and despite many of your other misgivings about the Church's leadership, I'm glad we can agree on this one point.

 

[Katzpur]

Adam didn't know any better because he didn't even know what good and evil was.

Yes he did. God told him. Don't eat this.

But how did Adam know that disobedience was "evil"? If you don't believe Adam came to be able to discern between good and evil by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why in the world do you think the tree was given that name?

 

[Salvador]

If he shunned her, as in break up with her? Then they would not have had kids. Then....no one would be here. Well, God would have probably put some more mud on his vase and made another pair of humans.

Well, what do you think would have happened with Eve had she alone eaten the forbidden fruit?

 

[Katzpur]

The foundation of the world happened after Adam had sinned.

What? What would make you think this? The foundation of the world was laid long before Adam ever got placed in the Garden of Eden. The foundation is the first thing to be laid. The entire creation took place after Jesus Christ had been chosen as the sacrificial Lamb.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you have to commit evil to know good and evil?

No, but you have to understand the difference between the two in order to make an informed choice between them, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So what the heck was God even punishing Adam for?

His Father told him him, “Don’t eat from that tree.” And told Adam, “if you do, you’ll die.”

Adam did. (Basically, he took something that wasn’t his.) He died.

 

[Katzpur]

They gained no knowledge.

So the name of the tree as given in Genesis was meaningless? There are obviously several meanings of "knowledge." So if the tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, where do the words "good and evil" come in to play? Knowledge also means "understanding, comprehension and realization." You appear to be blowing these more obvious meanings off entirely.

But that's what sin is. It literally means "miss" as in to miss the mark or goal set by someone. If you say meet me at the courthouse at 9:00 A.M. and I'm not there then I've sinned against you. It doesn't matter whether or not I know why you want me to be there.

Yes, but you both have to understand what the goal actually is. If I tell you to meet me at the court house at 9:00 and you don't know what that means, I can't very well be upset with you for not showing up.

 

[Salvador]

There is so much wrong with the premise to your conclusion that the Bible is false. First of all the Aboriginal and Native Americans were not contemplating the number of one man, as the verses in the Bible dealing with Jesus were. There were myriads of people listed in the Jewish chronologies, not all of them had anything to do with Jesus. Secondly when establishing the claim of Jesus' chronology not every single person in that line needed to be named. Only a few were necessary. Another point of consideration is that before the flood people, like Adam, could live up to over 900 years. Thirdly, and unrelated to chronology, just as an aside, Jesus didn't die on a cross, he died on a Hebrew torture stake. A simple upright pole. The cross didn't infiltrate Christianity until Constantine.

The only thing you got right in your post was that if Adam and original sin wasn't real then there would have been no need for a Messiah to deliver us from that sin.

Does not the Bible claim Eve to be the mother of all mankind? So the Bible is incomplete with its genealogy of 77 generations listed between Jesus Christ back to Adam who was with Eve, the mother of all mankind?

"A straightforward addition of the chronogenealogies yields a date for the beginning near 4000 B.C. Chronologists working from the Bible consistently get 2,000 years between Adam and Abraham. Few would dispute that Abraham lived around 2000 B.C. Many Christian leaders, though, claim there are gaps in the Genesis genealogies. One of their arguments is that the word begat, as used in the time-line from the first man Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, can skip generations. If this argument were true, the date for creation using the biblical time-line of history cannot be worked out.

In a recent debate, a well-known progressive creationist stated that he believed a person could date Adam back 100,000 years from the present. Since most modern scholars place the date of Abraham around 2000 B.C. (Ussher’s date for Abraham’s birth is 1996 B.C.), the remaining 96,000 years must fit into the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, between Adam and Abraham.

Now, if we estimate that 40 years equals one generation, which is fairly generous, this means that 2,500 generations are missing from these genealogies. But this makes the genealogies ridiculously meaningless."

Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?

 

[Katzpur]

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.

I don't see God as sadistic at all. Whenever I hear someone make this claim, I can't help but think of a 6-month-old child who is being taken to the doctor's office for his routine vaccinations. By the age of six months, a child has learned to recognize his mother and to know that she is the person who is always there to meet his needs. He trusts her because she has never done anything that would make him not trust her. It may not be a conscious trust (like one adult trusting another adult), but it's there nevertheless. This woman represents love, safety and compassion to this child. But then one day, all of a sudden, she hands him over to a total stranger who jabs him with a sharp needle. It hurts and he cries, but she does nothing to stop the stranger from inflicting pain on him. What must be going through that little head? The truth of the matter is that loving parents don't cause their children to experience pain without a very good reason. In this case, the child could not possibly understand his mother's reasoning, but his mother knew that, despite the pain, she was doing what was in the best interest of her child.

 

[Vaderecta]

So the name of the tree as given in Genesis was meaningless? There are obviously several meanings of "knowledge." So if the tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, where do the words "good and evil" come in to play? Knowledge also means "understanding, comprehension and realization." You appear to be blowing these more obvious meanings off entirely.

Yes, but you both have to understand what the goal actually is. If I tell you to meet me at the court house at 9:00 and you don't know what that means, I can't very well be upset with you for not showing up.

This is a very odd form of argument. When I see people arguing about what Ron meant by his actions in harry potter I see the same passion you raise about genesis. These are both arguments about works of fiction and have nothing to do with your morning tomorrow. There is no tree of good and evil but some people are happy to engage about what that story meant. Just don't confuse that with reality. When I grind the beans to make my coffee tomorrow I will not be consulting ender's game to see if bean or valentine think thats somehow a sin. I think coffee is currently healthy, I might be wrong in the morning but will check CNN if I can get through the trump news to literally read anything else of substance.

 

[Vaderecta]

I don't see God as sadistic at all. Whenever I hear someone make this claim, I can't help but think of a 6-month-old child who is being taken to the doctor's office for his routine vaccinations. By the age of six months, a child has learned to recognize his mother and to know that she is the person who is always there to meet his needs. He trusts her because she has never done anything that would make him not trust her. It may not be a conscious trust (like one adult trusting another adult), but it's there nevertheless. This woman represents love, safety and compassion to this child. But then one day, all of a sudden, she hands him over to a total stranger who jabs him with a sharp needle. It hurts and he cries, but she does nothing to stop the stranger from inflicting pain on him. What must be going through that little head? The truth of the matter is that loving parents don't cause their children to experience pain without a very good reason. In this case, the child could not possibly understand his mother's reasoning, but his mother knew that, despite the pain, she was doing what was in the best interest of her child.

Some mothers sell their children. (They also quite kindly give them up for adoption) What's going through the mind of a six month old human child? A lot less then I think you are imagining. (But Who knows? I I can't even remember being that age.)

 

[Earthling]

These are all topics that I could easily explain--as I have on several occasions before--but given the quality of the responses in this thread and the responses to my explanations in other threads, it seems probable that I would be wasting my time again.

I'll limit myself to answering the OP's question as to how to view Adam and Eve. A&E are most properly viewed as avatars for mankind in a parable that explains how mankind is fundamentally separated from God by nature.

They were already separated from God. Who has seen God and yet lived? So who was that they walked with in the garden? God's spokesperson or representative. His Word, most likely. Why did God rest on the seventh day? Because he was tired? Because his work was finished? No, he was neither tired nor finished working. (Isaiah 40:28 / John 5:17) What did David, and then Paul mean by not entering into God's rest? (Psalms 95:11 / Hebrews 3:11-4:10)

 

[Salvador]

This is a very odd form of argument. When I see people arguing about what Ron meant by his actions in harry potter I see the same passion you raise about genesis. These are both arguments about works of fiction and have nothing to do with your morning tomorrow. There is no tree of good and evil but some people are happy to engage about what that story meant. Just don't confuse that with reality. When I grind the beans to make my coffee tomorrow I will not be consulting ender's game to see if bean or valentine think thats somehow a sin. I think coffee is currently healthy, I might be wrong in the morning but will check CNN if I can get through the trump news to literally read anything else of substance.

Nobody in his/her right mind seriously takes much of anything about the Genesis creation myth as literal truth. Right?