Was it fair to kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

[strikeviperMKII]

If God seriously didn't really want Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, then don't put the damn tree in the Garden of Eden.

How do you know that God didn't want them to eat the fruit?

If God didn't want them to sin nor disobey, then you don't tell human not to eat the fruit by placing the Tree nearby where they were created, and expect them to not have curiosity of children.

Was God just dumb or something? Did he honestly not expect them to think about eating the fruit?
No, God wasn't dumb. God, in fact, knew that Adam and Eve would consider eating the fruit. That's why he told them not to. So they would consider doing something that they'd never done before. Something that God told them not to do.

Tell me, do you think you would have done any better?

No, I most certainly wouldn't. I would have eaten that fruit the second God told me not to, right in front of God's face. I've already done it. But the difference between me and Adam and Eve is that I strive to recognize when I do it. And when I do recognize, I try not to hide from it, I try not to blame others for it, or even myself. I accept that I did it, and that's that. Whatever consequences come, then that's what happens.
Adam and Eve didn't do that. They hid. Then they blamed others. The man blamed the woman, the woman blamed the snake. Tell me, does blaming others ever get you anywhere?

 

[gnostic]

How do you know that God didn't want them to eat the fruit?

Hence, my 3rd theory that God wanted them out of the Garden.

I've already done it. But the difference between me and Adam and Eve is that I strive to recognize when I do it. And when I do recognize, I try not to hide from it, I try not to blame others for it, or even myself. I accept that I did it, and that's that. Whatever consequences come, then that's what happens.

Probably...probably not. You may do what Adam did, and blame Eve, or whoever God created, especially if you were in the same situation as they were. You have to remember, you would have the same short experience in life, the same knowledge as they did. You might not realise it would be wrong to blame someone else for what you did, if you were in the same shoes as Adam's. The thing is if you were created like Adam, you wouldn't be "YOU".

But then again, maybe you would done things different to Adam, but I think that would be highly doubtful. Whether you would have blame Eve or not, is entirely speculative. You think you would take the responsibility for your own action, only because of postulation; that you know what Adam did.

Given the way the Genesis was written, I think you would have fail the test of obedience, and you would have most likely to blame the other, because if you were in one of their shoes, it was pre-destined to happen the way it did.

Otherwise, there would be no Noah's Flood, no covenant for Abraham, no Moses to lead the tribes out of Egypt or provide them with the Torah (Law), no Goliath to slay or kingdom to rule, and no Jesus offering redemption to anyone.

 

[Thief]

And this thread addresses Genesis literally?

Day Six God created everything that walks....including Man.
Sets him loose upon the earth...
Go forth be fruitful, multiply, dominate all things.

Day Seven...God rests and the creation process has stopped.

Apparently Man was behaving too much like an animal and something needed to be done about it.
THEN Chapter Two.

Chapter Two is a story of manipulation...not creation.
The physical body was altered....'Eve'
Then a spiritual alteration...'breathed a soul into him'....
Then a situation is presented to see if the alteration took hold.
It did.

The primary drives are still in place.....
Go forth be fruitful, multiply, dominate all things.
And we have....even to extent of doing so.... unto each other.

Apparently God is still trying to up grade the spiritual portions.

We have the scribes and prophets.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Hence, my 3rd theory that God wanted them out of the Garden.

How do you know he wanted them out of Eden?
The question is not to be answered, by the way. It supposed to break down your assertion that God wanted something, anything, from Adam and Eve.

Probably...probably not. You may do what Adam did, and blame Eve, or whoever God created, especially if you were in the same situation as they were. You have to remember, you would have the same short experience in life, the same knowledge as they did. You might not realize it would be wrong to blame someone else for what you did, if you were in the same shoes as Adam's. The thing is if you were created like Adam, you wouldn't be "YOU".

Did you not read what I typed? I said I WOULD eat the fruit, right after God tells me not to, right in front of his face, even.
Yes, I wouldn't be me, and yes I wouldn't have that life experience that tells me not to eat the fruit. I have that because I've eaten the fruit before, in other ways, and know that it's not a good idea.
So did we learn something from eating the fruit? I think so.

 

[Thief]

How do you know he wanted them out of Eden?
The question is not to be answered, by the way. It supposed to break down your assertion that God wanted something, anything, from Adam and Eve.


Did you not read what I typed? I said I WOULD eat the fruit, right after God tells me not to, right in front of his face, even.
Yes, I wouldn't be me, and yes I wouldn't have that life experience that tells me not to eat the fruit. I have that because I've eaten the fruit before, in other ways, and know that it's not a good idea.
So did we learn something from eating the fruit? I think so.

I would lean toward Gnostic, first.

The garden is like unto a modern day petri dish.
Man was already loose on the earth...doing whatever.

The garden is indeed a set-up.
When the experiment ended...the alteration complete....
Man was thrown out, back into the world.
The garden was then allowed to 'over grow'.

 

[gnostic]

The question is not to be answered, by the way. It supposed to break down your assertion that God wanted something, anything, from Adam and Eve.

That's not strictly true.

If God didn't want anything, then why in Genesis 1, he created humans in his image?

Why did he created man in the 1st place?

God wanted man to rule the animals from the air, land and sea. He wanted to populated the earth, in his "be fruitful, and multiply" declaration. This is a clear indication that he wanted something from humans. He supposedly design them in this way.

But then, in Genesis 2 (& 3), we find it is a totally different creation myth.

In Genesis 1, we just have God created the 1st (two) humans. Nothing to indicate that man was created (shaped) from the earth and given "breath", which you find in Genesis 2:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 2 resemble more like the several variations of Sumerian-Akkadian myths (including Babylonian). These much older myths varied from creating human(s) from the earth, using the soil or clay.
(Sources: Eridu Genesis; Epic of Atrahasis; Enuma Elish (Marduk tradition; the Assyrian tradition has the god Assur); Enki and Ninmah; Song of the Hoe; Gilgamesh epic, from the creation of Enkidu.)

Even the giving of breath to a lifeless body to give life is not uniquely Hebrew idea in the creation myth, for this is not only found in Mesopotamian myth, but in 3 different Egyptian myths of Ptah, Khnum and Neith. With the myth of Khnum, the god created humans from his potter's wheel!!!

Did you not read what I typed? I said I WOULD eat the fruit, right after God tells me not to, right in front of his face, even.
Yes, I wouldn't be me, and yes I wouldn't have that life experience that tells me not to eat the fruit. I have that because I've eaten the fruit before, in other ways, and know that it's not a good idea.
So did we learn something from eating the fruit? I think so.

I did read your reply. What I've stated is that you would most likely hide and deny responsibility as Adam did.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That's not strictly true.

If God didn't want anything, then why in Genesis 1, he created humans in his image?

Why did he created man in the 1st place?

If you find answers to those questions, you're God. You can ask those questions, but you will never find any answers. So asking them is very pointless. You can try to figure it out, but you'll never know if you're right or not...so why try?

I did read your reply. What I've stated is that you would most likely hide and deny responsibility as Adam did.

That's what I said I'd do.

 

[Thief]

If you find answers to those questions, you're God. You can ask those questions, but you will never find any answers. So asking them is very pointless. You can try to figure it out, but you'll never know if you're right or not...so why try?
That's what I said I'd do.

Here's something I wrote for another thread....Hope it helps.

"You don't need scripture of any kind to answer this.
Look in the mirror.

Your form has five senses. Each is different, but yields it's portion of perception to your mind.
You have two eyes to view your surroundings, two feet to change those surroundings and two hands to manipulate as you see fit.
There is no mystery to life.
All of this is a learning experience.

Why?

Picture yourself as God....yes you can.
Look in the 'mirror'.
Your reflection is perfect....but there is no conversation.
Each question you would ask, would have the perfect answer.

You are alone.

There is the universe...the creation...and though it responds to your touch...
it does not really respond.

Man is that part of creation that is unique.
Your linear existence insures it.
Your lack of knowing all things...creates 'the' question.

Would you like to question God?
Go ahead.
It's what He has been waiting for."

 

[Midnight Pete]

Despite being forbidden to do so by God, Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. God gave them that one rule and they broke it, though they werer under no compulsion to listen to what the Serpent told them. So it their expulsion from the garden was fair.

 

[RomCat]

I believe that Adam and Eve had all the
knowledge required concerning morality.
They were living in a perfect world. Their
knowledge of the things of God were abso-
lutely clear and unmuddled.
They were commanded by God not to eat
the forbidden fruit; yet, they did with the
the knowledge they were sinning. And at
the instant they sinned the world became
an imprefect place.

 

[gnostic]

I believe that Adam and Eve had all the
knowledge required concerning morality.

If this is true, then why did God plant the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden?

It is a paradox. If they had the knowledge of morality then the Tree is not necessary. That doesn't make sense.

They were living in a perfect world. Their
knowledge of the things of God were abso-
lutely clear and unmuddled.

If it was absolutely clear, then why did God say that they will die on that day, but when they actually didn't die.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The serpent was more right than God in saying that they wouldn't immediately die.

 

[tomato1236]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed before. Didn't spot anything like this while I was skimming through.

If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of good and evil, they had no way to know that disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit was actually wrong. They didn't obtain that knowledge until after their transgression. So, was it actually fair for them to be punished?

Yes. -

 

[Smoke]

If God didn't want them to sin or disobey, then why did God even plant the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden, in the first place?

For his own use.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If this is true, then why did God plant the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden?

Here's what I think:

It was a test of their obedience, as was the presence of the Serpent. The Serpent tempted Adam and Eve just as he would later tempt Jesus in the wilderness.

 

[Hisservant]

Actually that post does address something interesting, albeit off my original topic, about the creation story. In Genisis god was not depicted as being omnipresent. He didn't even realize that Adam and Eve sinned until after they confessed (they should have kept their traps shut so we could all be livining in paradise).

That is debatable. I would argue that God is omnipresent because God doesn't have a body ("the Spirit of God..." Genesis 1:2); therefore He is not limited to space and can be anywhere or everyone at once. You can think of it in a way as vapor. In the Christian view, God is understood as being omniscient, meaning all-knowing. So God being all-knowing and omnipresent it would be safe to say that He most likely knew/saw what happened.

Yes, I was wanting to discuss this with the people who take genisis literally.

Although I suppose it does have broader philosophical implications. Personally I am extremely uncomfortable with this aspect due to it's presentation of God as a kind of irresponsible parent. Adam and Eve had less knowledge about morality than a two year old and yet god left them unsupervised, and rather then punishes them for their natural curiousity.

Actually, in Genesis 1:26 God says that he creates humans to reign over the animals. He expected them to rule over His creation. In Genesis 2:15, He says they were to tend and watch over His creation. He didn't create them to abandon them in Eden because God was there with them. When they had committed the original sin, God was "walking" around the garden so they got the honor of speaking to God face to face and be in His presence. Plus, God didn't punish them because of their curiosity it was because they deliberately disobeyed God. He gave them everything and told them they could do whatever they wanted, but the only thing he asked them not to do was eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would die.

I'm not sure if this has been addressed before. Didn't spot anything like this while I was skimming through.

If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of good and evil, they had no way to know that disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit was actually wrong. They didn't obtain that knowledge until after their transgression. So, was it actually fair for them to be punished?

One doesn't need to know good and evil to know not to do something. Think back to parenting. Your parents tell you not to do something, but as a child you don't understand why they won't let you do it, but it is for your own good. An example would be a child wanting to stick a fork in an outlet. The parents immediately stop the child and say to absolutely never do it again. The child doesn't know why, but he/she knows to not do it again merely because his/her parents said to not. But what if the child does it anyway? Not only would it face the consequences of being shocked, but being punished by the parents for disobedience. In a way, Adam and Eve's "consequences" are the following listed in Genesis. Another example would be a teacher putting a child in time-out for misbehaving. The teacher isn't punishing the child to be mean or because he/she wants to, it's the child's consequence for misbehaving. It is because the acts of the child not from the cruelty of the teacher.

The bible can be hard to interpret at some points. I'm merely pointing out these flaws to enhance your understanding of the bible and what it says. I encourage you to continue questioning and seeking out the answers.

 

[Hisservant]

If God didn't want them to sin or disobey, then why did God even plant the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden, in the first place?

If this is true, then why did God plant the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden?

If it was absolutely clear, then why did God say that they will die on that day, but when they actually didn't die.

The serpent was more right than God in saying that they wouldn't immediately die.

I believe the “death” was more of a metaphorical death. Death of their lives in Eden. They can no longer live in eternal bliss in Eden or perhaps the death of innocence/purity. They can no longer “live the life.” Sure they didn’t die physically, but didn’t they lose everything else? After immediately eating the fruit Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked. Such a trivial thing. They were embarrassed at their nakedness. Naked is nothing hidden, everything is out in the open, can be seen. They had a naked relationship with God. So God could see their sin. They tried to cover their sin by hiding it. Maybe even the death of their cherished closeness with God.
The question about the tree.
A person dies from alcohol poisoning. Whose fault is it? The store’s for selling the alcohol to them? Or the person’s for not having the self control. Another example would be McDonald's and fast food restaurants. People want to sue McDonald's for becoming overweight because of their obesity they are more prone to health problems. Should they have that right? Is it McDonald's’ fault? The overweight person could have not eaten there. Does not the same go for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

In response to the thread title:

If God or anyone else created something it seems logical that the created thing would come under the creator's authority, and should therefore obey the creator's rules. From God's point of view, as the creator, Adam and the woman changing from immortal to mortal beings was fair, and kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden was a means to that end. From mans' point of view (which would be undoubtably be different to God's) it may not be fair, but the Bible teaches that God made the rules.

In response to the OP's question in the first post:

Whether or not they knew "good" and "evil," God had given Adam and the woman dominion over the earth and everything in it, so they at least knew submission to authority. In eating the fruit they did not submit to authority, and were thus punished.

The Hebrew is slightly ambiguous, but it has been said that Adam and the woman may have "known" good and evil; in that they knew there was a difference between the two, but didn't "know" good and evil; in terms of having had a personal experience of them both. In eating the fruit, Adam and the woman then experienced "evil," the same "evil" Lucifer exhibited when he rebelled against God.

Something interesting: Before "the fall" it was "Adam" and "the woman," it was only after the fall and judgement that Adam named the woman "Eve."

In relation to some other points I've seen in this thread:

It would seem that God put the tree in the Garden so that Adam and the woman would have a choice. If the tree wasn't there then there would be no choice, and they would have been incabapable of choosing to honour God with their obedience in that manner.

Moses in Ps. 90 and Peter in 2 Pet. 3 talk about a day being as 1000 years to the Lord. The Bible teaches that Adam lived 930 years after the fall: and as such he physically died in the "day" he ate the fruit. There are some who would say that he also died "spiritually" in the 24 hour day in which he ate the fruit. When the serpent is talking to the woman the serpent says that they will not "surely die." The Hebrew used here can be translated as such that their deaths will not be immediate. The Bible teaches that Adam and the woman did not pyhsically drop dead on the spot. From God's point of view He wasn't lying; whether a spiritual of physical death, they still died in the "day" they ate the fruit. Whether the serpent was telling the truth or not is debatable, but the chapter starts by introducing the serpent as "subtle."

In regards to the Garden being a setup for man to fail from the beginning, because God wanted the animals and man to multiply and fill the earth:

The Bible teaches that sin came into the world through the Garden. It is conceivable that if there was no sin in the garden, Adam and the woman (and the animals) could have had enough descendans to fill the earth, as would seem to be God's intention, and there still be no sin, if they, and their descendants didn't succumb and eat of the fruit.

 

[gnostic]

From God's point of view, as the creator, Adam and the woman changing from immortal to mortal beings was fair, and kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden was a means to that end.

Actually they were never immortals from the beginning. They would have been immortals if they only ate the fruit from the Tree of Life, which they didn't. They were expelled from the Garden before they could do so. They did not have eternal life and before they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, they had no knowledge of morality (hence they weren't ashamed of being naked).

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Where did you get the ideas they were immortals?

In eating the fruit, Adam and the woman then experienced "evil," the same "evil" Lucifer exhibited when he rebelled against God.

Again, where did you get the idea that this "Lucifer" (if such a being exist) "rebelled" against anyone?

You are mixing Christian belief with ancient Hebrew text. There is no Lucifer in the Hebrew scriptures, and no Devil. Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Morning Star. And the Lucifer in Isaiah referred to so-called prophecy of the King of Babylon, not to the Devil or Satan. Twice, Jesus have been linked to the Morning Star, hence to Lucifer. These are Christian concepts, certainly not in context with the Hebrew scriptures. And if anyone is linked to Lucifer it is Jesus.

Ask any religious Jews, and they will tell you that the Isaiah's prophecy has nothing to do with the angel called Satan.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

Actually they were never immortals from the beginning. They would have been immortals if they only ate the fruit from the Tree of Life, which they didn't. They were expelled from the Garden before they could do so. They did not have eternal life and before they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, they had no knowledge of morality (hence they weren't ashamed of being naked).



Where did you get the ideas they were immortals?



Again, where did you get the idea that this "Lucifer" (if such a being exist) "rebelled" against anyone?

You are mixing Christian belief with ancient Hebrew text. There is no Lucifer in the Hebrew scriptures, and no Devil. Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Morning Star. And the Lucifer in Isaiah referred to so-called prophecy of the King of Babylon, not to the Devil or Satan. Twice, Jesus have been linked to the Morning Star, hence to Lucifer. These are Christian concepts, certainly not in context with the Hebrew scriptures. And if anyone is linked to Lucifer it is Jesus.

Ask any religious Jews, and they will tell you that the Isaiah's prophecy has nothing to do with the angel called Satan.

My apologies if this looks poory formatted; I'm trying to use quotes for the first time.

Perhaps "immortals" was the wrong term, but from my reading of the Bible, I get the impression that there was no death (or decay for that matter) before the fall. Adam and the woman were created in the image of God, and as God "is and forever will be," they would have kept on "forever being" (living, not dying,) and thus be "immortal."

From my reading of the Bible I don't think that being naked in front of your spouse is an "immoral" thing, so Adam and the woman not being ashamed of their nakedness is not necessarily evidence of them having no knowledge of morality.
Perhaps God created them perfectly and as they were perfect creations they weren't ashamed of themselves. After they sinned they realised they were no longer perfect so they were ashamed, and thus sought fig leaves.

When the tree of life is mentioned in that passage you referenced it is after the fall. Adam and Eve were living in sin, and if they then ate from the tree of life, they would live forever...in sin. This would have been a problem for God if He wanted an eternal relationship with them, (as that seems to be the main purpose for which He created them) so He had to prevent them from having access to the tree of life. He did this by kicking them out of the Garden and putting Cherubim with a flaming sword there to guard it. There is nothing to suggest that Adam and the woman needed to eat from the tree of life before the fall in order to continue to live, it was only after they disobeyed God that it became an issue.

Perhaps I should have said "Satan" to avoid conflict. I have my reasons for believing that Lucifer is Satan and that he did rebel against God and fall from heaven like lighnting, but that is probably a bit off topic from the OP, which I believe I answered in my previous post.

If you want to continue this discussion about Lucifer and the immortality of Adam and the woman, feel free to pm me.

 

[gnostic]

My apologies if this looks poory formatted; I'm trying to use quotes for the first time.

Not a problem.

I don't use the "quote" button, because that button have the tendency to quote the whole post instead of the ones I've "highlighted".

You will see above where you type your message in the Quick Reply, a bunch of little buttons with images. So I used the quote button from the 8th button from your left.

Press that button (the one next to image of mountains), highlight the message you want to quote, type in the name of person you quote inside the square bracket with the equal sign, eg. quote=wordmagnifiedabovenames.

That way I can quote as many people as I like.

Oh, and welcome to RF. Hope that you'd enjoy RF.

Perhaps "immortals" was the wrong term, but from my reading of the Bible, I get the impression that there was no death (or decay for that matter) before the fall. Adam and the woman were created in the image of God, and as God "is and forever will be," they would have kept on "forever being" (living, not dying,) and thus be "immortal."

If Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil, then God wouldn't need to plant the tree with that knowledge on morality. If Adam and Eve had immortality, then there would be no need for God to plant the Tree of Life in the Garden.

It make no sense to have these trees there if they already have the knowledge and immortality.

When the tree of life is mentioned in that passage you referenced it is after the fall. Adam and Eve were living in sin, and if they then ate from the tree of life, they would live forever...in sin.

I'd have to say "yes" and "no", if there was a question in there (which there isn't).

Yes, I did quote the Tree of Life that's in the Fall. But the Tree of Life is almost earlier, in the previous chapter:

And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This would have been a problem for God if He wanted an eternal relationship with them, (as that seems to be the main purpose for which He created them) so He had to prevent them from having access to the tree of life. He did this by kicking them out of the Garden and putting Cherubim with a flaming sword there to guard it. There is nothing to suggest that Adam and the woman needed to eat from the tree of life before the fall in order to continue to live, it was only after they disobeyed God that it became an issue.

It still mean they weren't immortal before ate the forbidden fruit.

They weren't immortal. They were already mortals when they were made. The only differences between before and after they ate the fruit is how they would live their lives. When God created them they were not only had innocence (or free of sin, as you call it), they were free from any suffering.

When God punished them and expelled them from the Garden, the curse was not that of removing immortality from them (because they were never immortals), but that they would suffer. They would suffer in life as in his or her death when the time comes.

Otherwise, the story would make any sense.

Perhaps I should have said "Satan" to avoid conflict. I have my reasons for believing that Lucifer is Satan and that he did rebel against God and fall from heaven like lighnting, but that is probably a bit off topic from the OP, which I believe I answered in my previous post.

There are plenty of topics on Satan/Lucifer.

The thing is, the whole rebellion in heaven comes from the Hellenistic Jews, where Jews were influenced by Egyptian, Persian and Greek religious ideas. There are no rebellion in Hebrew scriptures (which you would Old Testament Bible). The rebellion comes from the pre-Christian, Hellenistic writings, like the Book(s) of Enoch and Book of Julibees. Both of these works were very influential by the time of Jesus and his early apostles, but most Jews generally don't accept these pseudepigraphal writings.

Mainstream Judaism, don't believe in Satan to be the Devil or personification of evil. To the Jews, he was just another angel, with specific duties, to test people's faith, but still working under God's direction and mandate. The Christian Satan is totally different character to the Hebrew version. Jews don't believe that angels have free will, therefore they can't rebel.

Islam also don't believe that angels can rebel against god too, but they get around this by saying that Satan is not and never was an angel. To the Muslims there are no such things as "fallen" angels, therefore Satan was a djinn, a different type of spiritual being. I'd call this BS....sorry.

I still think you are trying to put Christian concept and interpretation into Hebrew texts. Such thing as Satan being the Devil is a foreign concept to Judaism.