Why Adam's Sin Became the Downfall for Us All

[sojourner]

In Gen 3, God went walking on a cool day, but what did you leave out? This is after Adam and Eve's sin and they now realize they did wrong. What would best represent meeting God that way? Or even representing someone who provided for them and someone they could trust.

Doesn't matter. This is the earliest reference to anything relating to God being physically here. and we all know it's poetic and not literal.

What if all you heard was God's voice? Is this the most effective way to live with somebody if you could not see them? How do you trust them?

how does a blind person trust a guide?

we have to think they must've had some presence even though God is spiritual.

God is Presence -- not "present."

We have witnesses to who saw Jesus after his resurrection. They saw him and interacted with him as a human person.

That's because he was a human person. "Resurrection" literally just means "to get up." It's the same Greek term one uses when getting up out of bed in the morning.

Thus, why wouldn't a spiritual being not be able to show himself in a human form to humans? Nor enjoy what they enjoy, things like walking through paradise on a cool day. How does he even judge things that he created were good?

What does this have to do with God being on earth or not?

As for Exodus 33, how did God appear to Moses? He was already talking to him.

it says, "The Lord passed by [the cleft of the rock]." Again, poetic, but not literal. All of this refutes your "theory" that God was physically present on the earth in the garden, but "went back to heaven away from us" later on.

 

[james bond]

Doesn't matter. This is the earliest reference to anything relating to God being physically here. and we all know it's poetic and not literal.


how does a blind person trust a guide?


God is Presence -- not "present."


That's because he was a human person. "Resurrection" literally just means "to get up." It's the same Greek term one uses when getting up out of bed in the morning.


What does this have to do with God being on earth or not?


it says, "The Lord passed by [the cleft of the rock]." Again, poetic, but not literal. All of this refutes your "theory" that God was physically present on the earth in the garden, but "went back to heaven away from us" later on.

Again, it's literal. Where it isn't literal are in the prophecies.

We aren't blind. God can be there as a spiritual presence so we could see a person. That said, I may have to think about God the Father leaving (unless it was Jesus). There was the time Abraham met God and he knew who it was. He even went down to greet them and bowed down to give proper respect instead of them coming to his house. This caused a great change in Abraham and Sarah's life. It could have been Jesus as Lord, but could have been God, as well. It was an important meeting.

Yeah, right .

Boy, you don't understand the resurrection.

It means God the Father was present and in human spiritual form with Adam and Eve. Otherwise, why all the detailed explanations? He wasn't just invisible when he didn't need to be. This may be the only theopany. I have to rethink the Abraham meeting. I think it was with Lord Jesus, but it is not made clear.

You did not answer my question. How in Exodus 33, which you stated, did he appear? What did Moses see? Can you find the right one and explain how he appeared to Moses?

Hint (for the poetic and allegorical): Who did Moses see in Exodus 33:23? | CARM.org

The above seems to point to no Father after the sin, but the Bible does not make it clear in Abraham. I'll admit that.

 

[sojourner]

Again, it's literal. Where it isn't literal are in the prophecies

The best scholastic, literary and anthropological minds on the planet disagree with you. And for good reason. The creation narratives originate in earlier Assyrian and Babylonian myths.

There was the time Abraham met God and he knew who it was. He even went down to greet them and bowed down to give proper respect instead of them coming to his house

Because that was the social convention of the culture.

Boy, you don't understand the resurrection

Uh huh. Read the Greek for yourself,if you’re able to do so. The tomb was empty; it was a physical resurrection. When Jesus showed up among the disciples, the first thing he did was to ask for something to eat. He was physically hungry.

was present and in human spiritual form with Adam and Eve

How does that work, exactly? “Human spiritual form?” That’s just not a concept in the theology of the ancient Hebrews.

I have to rethink the Abraham meeting. I think it was with Lord Jesus, but it is not made clear

Uh, no. Jesus never appears in the Hebrew texts, and it’s a mistake to make him appear there.

You did not answer my question. How in Exodus 33, which you stated, did he appear? What did Moses see? Can you find the right one and explain how he appeared to Moses

Moses saw God’s backside. No one can see God’s face and live. Again, it’s metaphor, not literal.

 

[sojourner]

If Adam was able to avoid his temptation, then we would all be living and experiencing paradise today

And we would not have attained wisdom. The serpent isn’t Satan in Genesis. It’s wisdom. The serpent is a nearly universal symbol for wisdom. In fact, in similar wisdom-stories such as this, wisdom is a God who is a trickster — just as in Gen 2. Wisdom tricks us into taking the necessary step toward our full humanity.

It also meant that Adam lost his dominion over Earth. He had given it to Satan who became "god of the Earth

Satan does not appear in Genesis.

Thus, this was a huge problem and the only future we had was a future without God and hell which was designed for Lucifer and his angels who rebelled against God

Lucifer does not appear in Genesis. There is no “hell” in the theology of the Genesis writers.

C’mon, man! This is “Bible 101” stuff. You really need some courses.

 

[james bond]

The best scholastic, literary and anthropological minds on the planet disagree with you. And for good reason. The creation narratives originate in earlier Assyrian and Babylonian myths

Because that was the social convention of the culture.


Uh huh. Read the Greek for yourself,if you’re able to do so. The tomb was empty; it was a physical resurrection. When Jesus showed up among the disciples, the first thing he did was to ask for something to eat. He was physically hungry.


How does that work, exactly? “Human spiritual form?” That’s just not a concept in the theology of the ancient Hebrews.


Uh, no. Jesus never appears in the Hebrew texts, and it’s a mistake to make him appear there.


Moses saw God’s backside. No one can see God’s face and live. Again, it’s metaphor, not literal.

Not the Bible scholars. Do you have a link for your claim? Furthermore, the Assyrian and Babylonian myths were based on the Bible. The fiction came after the real events. What kind of Christian are you? You have got it backwards. Fiction follows true events. Look at The Irishman. We also 50s sci-fi dealing with monsters created by the atomic bomb. The closest we had to real non-fiction was movies dealing with MAD and it preventing nuclear holocaust, but the fiction writers wanted to show something could go wrong. I can't disagree with that.

Who told you that? Do you do that if you see someone you know coming up the block? If it was a regular person or friend, then he would've waited at the house for them to come knocking. That was and still is custom.

At least, you finally admit it was a physical God. That's why I said the Apostles and Jesus' friends were able to see him after the resurrection and see his new flesh and bone. No blood. Do you see why we have communion in remembrance of Jesus? We partake his symbolic body and blood to remember his sacrifice, give thanks, and re-affirm our faith. Now, here is allegory. In the other parts where people meet God, it's Christophany. Jesus is Lord.

Here's where we have our second disagreement. It has to do with the Father in the Garden and whether he took human form.Do you have any arguments why the Father did not take human form? He is described as having parts of the body like us?

I think where we agree is with Christophany where people meet a resurrected or incarnate Jesus. While we didn't discuss the Holy Spirit, there are Bible verses where the Spirit takes over the body of a human. Is there any other places where there is theophany? I don't think there is. However, I can't say for certain it was incarnate Jesus with Abraham and you do not argue for it. Thus, I'll stick with Jesus and thus the Father left ehe universe and Earth after A&E's sin and we became fallen. There was no need to remain for a spiritual being who was holy, holy, holy.

Who is Lord who appears as a man that Abraham can see? Who are the two other men? Your explanation lack detail and rational argument.

I'm going to leave your quote mining stuff alone. You don't answer my questions exactly nor produce Biblical arguments. That isn't your purpose, so it gets boring. All I can say is don't get misled when it comes to nitty gritty. Most arguments don't start and end by insulting the other party. It is you who needs to get more Biblical wisdom. That starts by answering my questions and not ignoring them, but addressing all of them and being able to explain in more detail. Good day.

 

[james bond]

And we would not have attained wisdom. The serpent isn’t Satan in Genesis. It’s wisdom. The serpent is a nearly universal symbol for wisdom. In fact, in similar wisdom-stories such as this, wisdom is a God who is a trickster — just as in Gen 2. Wisdom tricks us into taking the necessary step toward our full humanity.

Satan does not appear in Genesis.


Lucifer does not appear in Genesis. There is no “hell” in the theology of the Genesis writers.

C’mon, man! This is “Bible 101” stuff. You really need some courses.

This is more of your stupid and childish arguments. You're putting words in my mouth which I didn't say. What kind of Christian are you? What kind of wisdom do you possess? Basically, it's where are your arguments? Your explanations? Aside from two points (addressed in post #145), that was it. Ad hominems mean you lost the debate before we even started. Just what are you arguing for? What are you arguing against? Are you such an insecure schmuck that you have to insult people to show how superior you are? It just goes to show you are a snowflake and have a confidence issue. Again, good day.

 

[sojourner]

Not the Bible scholars

Especially the Bible scholars. Read Metzger. Read Lowery. Read Matthews.

Do you have a link for your claim

I don’t use internet links. I research with scholarly works, commentaries and peer reviewed articles.

the Assyrian and Babylonian myths were based on the Bible

You have it backward. Read Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East.

What kind of Christian are you

The kind who has a graduate degree in biblical studies.

Who told you that? Do you do that if you see someone you know coming up the block? If it was a regular person or friend, then he would've waited at the house for them to come knocking. That was and still is custom

Several cultural anthropologists told me that. It was the custom for ancient Hebrews.

Do you see why we have communion in remembrance of Jesus? We partake his symbolic body and blood to remember his sacrifice, give thanks, and re-affirm our faith

Wrong. The word “remember” is translated from the Greek anamnesis. It has nothing to do with remembering past events. It has everything to do with bringing past events into our present, so that we participate in those events, as they happen. There is only one Eucharist. All Christians, in all times and in all places share in that one breaking of bread that Jesus effected in the upper room. Anamnesis is us entering into the self-sacrifice of Jesus.

Do you have any arguments why the Father did not take human form?

Yes. 1) There was no “Father” in the Hebrew texts, except as God was seen as our Father — not Jesus’ Father. 2) God taking human form is not a part of Judaic theology, so is not present in the Hebrew texts.

However, I can't say for certain it was incarnate Jesus with Abraham and you do not argue for it

Of course not. Again, there is no Jesus in the Hebrew texts.

Who is Lord who appears as a man that Abraham can see? Who are the two other men? Your explanation lack detail and rational argument

They are unidentified by the texts.

You don't answer my questions exactly nor produce Biblical arguments

That’s correct. Your questions lack focus. I provide exegetical arguments. I’m not an apologist.

 

[sojourner]

This is more of your stupid and childish arguments. You're putting words in my mouth which I didn't say. What kind of Christian are you? What kind of wisdom do you possess? Basically, it's where are your arguments? Your explanations? Aside from two points (addressed in post #145), that was it. Ad hominems mean you lost the debate before we even started. Just what are you arguing for? What are you arguing against? Are you such an insecure schmuck that you have to insult people to show how superior you are? It just goes to show you are a snowflake and have a confidence issue. Again, good day.

Oh? Really! I haven’t put a single word in your mouth. To answer your two questions together: the kind of Christian who has a graduate degree in biblical studies and theology.

My arguments have been made; it is a fact that there is no Satan or Lucifer in Genesis. My explanation has already been made: your posts are woefully confused with regard to the subject at hand. I have not made one ad hominem attack. I’ve said that your posts lack substance. That’s an observation, not an attack on your character. Please study up on logical fallacies. Accusing me of doing things I haven’t done doesn’t mean you’ve “won” any argument.

I’m arguing for responsible and legitimate theological constructs based in exegetical treatments of the texts in question. I’m arguing against slipshod theological argument with no solid biblical basis, such as I found in the OP.

your next question is an ad hominem attack. It’s against forum rules. I haven’t insulted you, merely your “arguments.” “Snowflake” is likewise an inflammatory attack. Accusing me of having “confidence issues” is, I’m guessing, a projection tactic on the part of your argumentation. These kinds of ad hominem, provocative attacks are the usual fare of those who simply don’t have decent arguments.

 

[james bond]

Oh? Really! I haven’t put a single word in your mouth. To answer your two questions together: the kind of Christian who has a graduate degree in biblical studies and theology.

My arguments have been made; it is a fact that there is no Satan or Lucifer in Genesis. My explanation has already been made: you’re woefully confused about the subject at hand. I have not made one ad hominem attack. I’ve said that your posts lack substance. That’s an observation, not an attack on your character. Please study up on logical fallacies. Accusing me of doing things I haven’t done doesn’t mean you’ve “won” any argument.

I’m arguing for responsible and legitimate theological constructs based in exegetical treatments of the texts in question. I’m arguing against slipshod theological argument with no solid biblical basis, such as I found in the OP.

your next question is an ad hominem attack. It’s against forum rules. I haven’t insulted you, merely your “arguments.” “Snowflake” is likewise an inflammatory attack. Accusing me of having “confidence issues” is, I’m guessing, a projection tactic on the part of your argumentation. These kinds of ad hominem, provocative attacks are the usual fare of those who simply don’t have decent arguments.

@sojourner, I don't want to argue with you anymore because you're not very good at formulating an argument. You're not very good at explaining things to someone interested in what you have degrees in. What you seem to like to do is attack people with ad hominems and to me it sounds like you make up stuff. You provide no links that I can read to back up what you state. To me, they just sound like assertions. How is someone who reads the Bible literally (except for the propheciy parts) suppose to believe another person I've just met with no knowledge of their background? I am not a mind reader. Do you believe in a 6000 year old Earth?

An educated person would be able to explain and demonstrate to everyone what your source is and where you get your facts. I'm one who also uses facts, reasoning, and historical facts or rationalism to formulate an argument.

I don't think you are here to explain your POV or what you learned with your Biblical studies and theology degree. What I get are personal attacks. You also did not answer the questions I asked you. You just ignored them. Thus, you didn't pay any attention to what I was saying, did you? The above are my observations of you based on our little back and forth. I am leaving with not a shred of anything to think about, but your judgements on my Biblical knowledge and what I said in the OP. You claim you base it on facts, but again where are these facts? Facts are things that we all can use to formulate our conclusions.

For example, the serpent in Genesis 3 is explained as "And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9. Are you just going by Genesis 3?

Here is a link from one of my sources:

"Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak." Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3? | GotQuestions.org

I am presenting the general factual knowledge we have of the Bible. This is one of your assertions you presented as fact which is rebutted above. So, are your degrees from somewhere outside the US or a degree in a different religion?.

 

[sojourner]

What you seem to like to do is attack people with ad hominems

Show me one ad hominem I’ve offered.

You provide no links that I can read to back up what you state

I already said that I don’t use links. This is all “Bible 101” stuff. It’s all stuff that the serious bible student knows.

How is someone who reads the Bible literally (except for the propheciy parts) suppose to believe another person I've just met with no knowledge of their background

I can’t answer that. I don’t read the Bible literalistically in most cases.

Do you believe in a 6000 year old Earth

No. The earth is much, much older than that.

An educated person would be able to explain and demonstrate to everyone what your source is and where you get your facts

I gave you names and sources. Did you research them?

You also did not answer the questions I asked you

I believe I did. Did you miss the answers?

For example, the serpent in Genesis 3 is explained as "And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9. Are you just going by Genesis 3?

No. Revelation is not a good exegesis of Genesis. It’s an apology for a theological — not an exegetical — position. It doesn’t in any way mean that the Genesis writers were writing about a Greek character they’d never heard of.

Here is a link from one of my sources:

Weak resource.

I am presenting the general factual knowledge we have of the Bible

You’re mostly presenting baseless opinion of biblical material. My original assessment stands.

 

[Deeje]

No clue.

It's not an afterlife in the regular sense of the word. It's not what you refer to as "Heaven", where good people go after dying. We also have a version of that in Judaism. The World To Come will be after end-times. Heaven is rest-stop for (dead) good souls awaiting the end-times.

This is interesting to me, since going to heaven was not a belief of the ancient Jews for whom to Tanakh was written. There was no belief in an afterlife at all in that early period.
Going to heaven was a Christian belief based on God's choosing of a royal priesthood from among mankind to rule with Jesus in heaven. Under Hellenic influence both Judaism and Christianity adopted belief in a soul that is separate and distinct from the body. The ancients had no such belief. A "soul" in Jewish thinking, was a living breathing creature, both man and animal....the word never meant a disembodied spirit.

Jews believed in resurrection, not in an immortal soul. That was a Platonic Greek belief. The problem with souls that survive death, is that you have to invent places for them to go. Some people got very creative with that. There was never a need for any human to go anywhere but this earth in God's original purpose.

These types of verses are interpreted as speaking about the physical body. The soul is eternal. It is, after all, a piece of God.

If you read Genesis 2:7 it says that Adam "became" a soul when God started him breathing. He was not given a soul. Souls are not eternal, they are mortal...they die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Life is restored by God by means of the resurrection.....a return to life on a cleansed earth.....transformed into paradise conditions as they were originally meant to be.

Probably not on earth. Or if it is, it's on a different plane of existence, clearly inaccessible to us.

What makes you think so? What kind of life did God give to humankind in the beginning? Was there any mention of death in the Genesis account of creation? I can only find it as a penalty for disobedience.

As I have shown you from the Tanakh, "the tree of life" in the garden guaranteed that the humans, if they had remained obedient, would have partaken of the tree of life and lived forever. (Genesis 3:22-24) But once sin entered into the world, God barred the way to the tree of life. Death is what resulted.

No clue. I suggest you ask other Jews on RF. Try the Judaism DIR.

It is obvious if you read Genesis. Once humans became sinful, there was no way that God was going to allow them to live forever. Imagine all the despots of the past...are we not grateful that they are no longer in the world?

Bear in mind that there will probably always be some things about God that we'll never know.
I figure that the punishment, as I previously stated, is a push to start working. If you've only got a limited amount of time on earth, you'll start doing your best instead of lazing around all day.

I don't believe that God ever designed humans to be lazy. Look at the ants or bees who never stop working. We had an important role to play here, made in God's image would never have allowed us to have idle hands. The garden of Eden was a blueprint of what God wanted the whole earth to look like.....we have creativity as part of our design, so what an amazing assignment we had.....but once sin entered the world, we lost our way. Only God could restore what we lost.....he will take redeemed mankind back to paradise, as he first intended. (Isaiah 55:11)

It's not a complicated story.

 

[Harel13]

since going to heaven was not a belief of the ancient Jews for whom to Tanakh was written. There was no belief in an afterlife at all in that early period.

I think what you mean to say is that there's no afterlife mentioned in the Tanach. But there certainly was a belief in an afterlife. The Oral Tradition is just as ancient as The Written one, and there we have references to the afterlife.

If you read Genesis 2:7 it says that Adam "became" a soul when God started him breathing. He was not given a soul. Souls are not eternal, they are mortal...they die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

That's the problem with translations - things get lost. The God-given soul, the Neshama, is eternal. The animalistic driving force which provides a semblance of life, the Nefesh, is not eternal.

I don't believe that God ever designed humans to be lazy

Nor do I. I never implied that.

It's not a complicated story.

Isn't it? Agree to disagree then. I still recommend you try asking in the Judaism DIR.

 

[1213]

…

I'm at a disadvantage because you do not answer my questions while I end up answering yours and arguing against other points you make up such as we should not make images of God.

Sorry, I think I have answered to all important and meaningful questions. Please repeat, if there is some important question that needs answer.

… Thus, are you against the Sistine Chapel?

I am not against it. Bible is against making images of God. And I recommend to obey it.

… As for the gods in Psalms or sons of God in Job, who do you think they are?

I don’t remember that Bible would name them. And I don’t want to make guesses.

… Are you sure that is what you claim in my Biblical pov I guess to show you believe the one and only true God. What backs up your claims? What creed do you believe?

I believe what the Bible tells. But in this case maybe this is good short answer to what is my creed:

…there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

 

[sooda]

@sojourner, I don't want to argue with you anymore because you're not very good at formulating an argument. You're not very good at explaining things to someone interested in what you have degrees in. What you seem to like to do is attack people with ad hominems and to me it sounds like you make up stuff. You provide no links that I can read to back up what you state. To me, they just sound like assertions. How is someone who reads the Bible literally (except for the propheciy parts) suppose to believe another person I've just met with no knowledge of their background? I am not a mind reader. Do you believe in a 6000 year old Earth?

An educated person would be able to explain and demonstrate to everyone what your source is and where you get your facts. I'm one who also uses facts, reasoning, and historical facts or rationalism to formulate an argument.

I don't think you are here to explain your POV or what you learned with your Biblical studies and theology degree. What I get are personal attacks. You also did not answer the questions I asked you. You just ignored them. Thus, you didn't pay any attention to what I was saying, did you? The above are my observations of you based on our little back and forth. I am leaving with not a shred of anything to think about, but your judgements on my Biblical knowledge and what I said in the OP. You claim you base it on facts, but again where are these facts? Facts are things that we all can use to formulate our conclusions.

For example, the serpent in Genesis 3 is explained as "And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9. Are you just going by Genesis 3?

Here is a link from one of my sources:

"Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak." Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3? | GotQuestions.org

I am presenting the general factual knowledge we have of the Bible. This is one of your assertions you presented as fact which is rebutted above. So, are your degrees from somewhere outside the US or a degree in a different religion?.

There were snake cults all over the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Arabian peninsula and the Indus Valley long before Adam and Eve. The serpent represented wisdom, fertility and new life.. They had observed the snake could shed it skin.

 

[james bond]

Sorry, I think I have answered to all important and meaningful questions. Please repeat, if there is some important question that needs answer.

That's okay. I'll just think you didn't know and ignored.

 

[Muffled]

I believe original sin based on Adam & Eve is unfounded malarkey.

 

[Muffled]

God comes across as a jerk in that story.

I believe that qualifies as blasphemy. I believe God knows exactly what He is doing and why and that it is good.

 

[Muffled]

Why is this in General Religious Debates? It's Christian — not even Jews and Muslims believe in original sin.

I believe anyone can read the text and make deductions from it. Certainly the Qu'ran has a pertinent oar in the story.

 

[Muffled]

And further, represents the first creature to become fully conscious and thus lose animal innocence. The apple metaphor represents learning of the realm of opposites, good vs evil, right vs wrong.

I believe it is quite unnatural for people to not know evil so I consider that God removed the knowledge of it for them just as it is likely that He will do that in The Kingdom of God to come.

 

[lukethethird]

I believe that qualifies as blasphemy. I believe God knows exactly what He is doing and why and that it is good.

It's just a story, get over it.