When Adam met Eve

Many Christians see it as an explanation of the pain of childbirth - not a "foreshadowing".Eve had never had any children at the time, so "ever since" refers to all human births. There was no change. There was no "Fall". Doesn't make much sense, unless God shrunk Eve's hips.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hmm... never noticed they were naked.... So, eating the fruit increased their intelligence from an almost unimaginably abysmal level? Or, does it maybe suggest to you that the story shouldn't be taken too too too literally? I don't see any "curse" suffered by "the animals". I don't see any animals mentioned except the snake. If there was such a dramaitc "Fall" of all the animals, why doesn't the Bible mention it? I don't see where it says that either. It says they were denied the tree of life after they obtained the knowledge of good and evil, not before. Nonsense. I've been in and out of dozens of evangelical churches for half a century. I've heard thousands of sermons and Bible studies and I don't think I've ever heard "the Fall" mentioned in church.Your interpretation is not the only one.God's creation is exactly as He created it. Our imperfect condition is exactly as we were created. A "Fall" would imply that the Creator was incompetent. I didn't say it couldn't happen - I said it doesn't make sense. Why would God "design" Eve with wide hips and then shrink them? She had never had any shildren. What could she learn from that?But there are other threads about the fictitious "Fall".-------------As for the OP, it seems to me that Adam-meets-Eve wasn't necessarily a love-at-first-sight scenario as iano suggests. After all, they had no choice, did they?Maybe both of them had to "close their eyes and think of England" or the human race would not exist.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I believe Eve looked like Agnetha Faltskog from ABBA.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Uh, no it doesn't. If I say, "you're the shortest person in the room," does that mean everybody in the room is short? You might be the only one under 6'-8". The snake was commpared to the other animals - there is no indication that the other animals suffered a curse. (By the way, the fossil record doesn't show such a "curse", or "fall", does it?) I hope you're aware that the headings and commentaries added to some Bibles are not actually part of the Bible. Time for an attitude adjustment? I didn't say it was. I said it is not a sensible interpretation. Humans caused a mass extinction way back when? During one of several Ice Ages? I'm sure you can find somebody to debate that little tidbit with you. The girl next door is walking around stark naked and Adam doesn't even notice? That is abysmally dumb. By any standard, eating the fruit gave them a huge increase in intelligence (able to see naked women with a single glance).That's not a "fall".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's not the way it works. You have to show it is in the Bible before it holds any water. "The Fall" is not a "recognized part" all all theology - nor are the propaganda additions present in every Bible. You are welcome to your belief, but don't expect it to get a free pass here. (And as I mentioned, there is no fossil record of a "fall". It didn't happen in the real world, even if you think it happened in the Bible.) Just watch the Forum Guidelines, that's all - a little friendly advice to keep you out of trouble. *shrug* There are people in many of those churches who think the earth is 6000 years old. Go figure what nonsense people can blame on the Bible. Something else you never heard of in your sheltered life? We're talking naked women here. Have you ever seen a naked woman? They're pretty hard to miss.I'm saying that "they didn't notice that they were naked" ought to be your first clue that the story is not meant to be taken literally.Instead of jumping through hoops trying to justify Adam's idiocy, you should be thinking about what it really means.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No such thing. We are all responsible for our own actions - no blaming Adam and Eve. "Expulsion", not "fall". And "Garden", not "Paradise". They never had immortality, so the was nothing to "lose", nowhere to "fall" from. Not in all translations or all editions. It's propaganda, pure and simple. A dramitic change in all the animals on earth wouldn't leave a fossil record? Come on. The "traces in geology" would be fossils of, say, snakes with legs. Where are they? Your dog can probably recognize a bitch in heat. Are you saying Adam was dumber than your dog? Sure we do. Just stop and ask yourself: what does "nakedness" really mean in Genesis 3? (Spiritually, not scientifically.)Edit: speeling.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-26 07:46 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Only if you take Adam and Eve as real historical people. There is also no fossil evidence of a time when only two homo sapiens existed at one place in the world.It makes more sense to think of Adam and Eve as the "human race". Hence, each trespass leads to condemnation for each individual. Did they? You're the one who said that all animals were "cursed" along with the snake. The snake lost his ability to talk and (maybe?) his legs. What "curse" do you think was on the other animals, that wouldn't show up in the fossil record?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course not - it just seems a little too "convenient" that there is no evidence of your claims. You said that all the animals were "cursed". If the "curse" did not involve physical changes, what kind of "curse" was it?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

My point is that men can recognize a naked woman when they see one.Either Adam was dumber than a post - and "the Fall" was a huge improvement - or the story is not meant to be taken literally. It isn't semantics.There is a significant difference between a "Garden" and "Paradise". After all, Adam had to tend the garden. There is also a significant difference between being expelled from the garden and suffering some kind of catastrophic "fall".What the Bible describes is somebody being evicted from his house. What "Fallists" describe is somebody being evicted from a palace and becoming crippled for life at the same time - far more than a semantic difference. No. Because that still connotes an event. What we have in Genesis 3 is an explanation of why we have to work for a living, etc.Once again, your first clue that it is not meant to be taken as a literal event is the fact that they didn't notice they were naked. Are you ever going to address that point? Some churches - not all of them.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm sure you can get lots and lots and lots and lots of debate on that in the appropriate threads. For this thread, suffice it to say you have no evidence for your claims? So what "curse" was there on all the animals?-------------Meanwhile, back at the topic, why do you think Genesis 3 was intended to be taken literally when Adam and Eve didn't even notice they were naked?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So, they went from "just like animals" to humans, and you call that a "fall"? It isn't about the word.

quote:

---

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked....

---

It was the fruit that made them notice their nakedness. It was an increase in perception, not a "fall". "The Fall' didn't happen. There was never a time when there were only two homo sapiens wandering the earth, too stupid to know they were naked. The story is an explanation of why we have to work for a living, etc. It is not a historical event. All I claim is what's in the Bible. Anybody who turns "garden" into "paradise" is writing fiction. No, it wasn't "catastrophic" because it wasn't an event. It didn't happen. It's an explanation of why we have to work for a living, etc. No, I most certainly do not "know" that.We know that the creation did not happen as depicted in Genesis 1 - or as in the completely different depiction in Genesis 2. We know that there were never just two homo sapiens wandering around the earth, too stupid to know they were naked. We know that the Flood never happened. And on and on....They were not real events. It is our responsibility to understand what the Bible really says.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Once again, that's not the way it works. He who makes the claim must back it up. Exactly.They are not historical events. They are stories which have meaning beyond mere "news". By taking them as mere history, you miss the point entirely.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So, specifically, how did the animals "suffer"?(Remember, you claimed that all the animals were "cursed", not just the ones which became extinct - and not all extinctions can be blamed on man.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What's your point? No, it isn't about the word "nakedness" or about what the word meant. it's about the notion that they didn't notice that they were naked. How can you take that literally? Nope. It wasn't an event. Genesis 3 is an explanation of why we have to work hard, why women suffer in childbirth, etc. There is no indication of a change from an "intended" state. The only change recorded is that they became smarter. That's not a "fall". And everybody knows that Hawaii isn't literally "Paradise". The Fallists try to pretend that the Garden of Eden was Paradise. It is important to keep the distinction that it was just a garden. There you go again. It is not "all" Christians who believe in "the Fall". If you open your eyes, you'll find quite a lot of Christians right here on this forum who don't believe in "the Fall". If you open your eyes even further, you'll find that I am not the god of "counter-Bible skepticism" - I'm the god of dogma-blasting. If the fictitious "Fall" was such a rock-solid Christian dogma doctrine, you should be able to back it up Biblically instead of resorting to childish insults.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I was countering your claim that "the Fall" did happen. You brought it up, so it's still your claim and you're the one who needs to back it up (though this topic is probably not the place for it).I asked for paleontological evidence because you need that too if you want to prove that "the Fall" was a real event. Sure, a real event can teach us lessons. My point is that fictitious events, such as in Genesis, can also teach us lessons.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC