The first 3 chapters of Genesis

Hi Robinrohan,I agree with your interpretation, and I confess puzzlement at the declaration by some that there was no fall. Perhaps some just don't like the phrase "fall from grace" as a reference to God's expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, and in that sense they mean there was no fall, but that seems a mere semantic argument. Certainly the original sin that caused all man's subsequent hardships and required a born-again relationship to be constructed with God in order to be saved seems a significant event fully qualified of the designation "fall from grace."Genesis does not state but implies that God did not change conditions within Eden, and therefore the expulsion was necessary for two reasons. One was so that man would experience the suffering God described. Presumably farming and toiling and so forth wouldn't have been necessary had Adam and Eve remained in the Eden paradise. The other reason for the expulsion was that God feared that if man was capable of disobeying him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then what was preventing him from also eating of the tree of life. Oddly the tree of life isn't mentioned previously, and there is no overt command to not eat of the tree of life, but the implication was that this, too, was part of God's requirements.--Percy

Have you forgotten your own OP already?

quote:

---

I'm interested in interpretation generally and in what appear to me the bizarre interpretations I've been reading lately about what actually happens in this story.

---

How can we discuss interpretation unless we discuss meaning?

---

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

There are different levels of interpretation. This thread is only concerned with the facts of the story, not the philosophical implications.

Then your criticism of the "bizarre interpretations" seems out of line, since those interpretations are based on meaning.If you want to take 1984 or The Brothers Karamazov as simple comic-book fare, you're welcome to do so, but it seems like a waste of a thread.

---

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

That's a first.

Yeah, the problem is that they are based on meaning instead of looking at what the story actually relates. People come to the story with preconceived ideas as to its meaning and they twist it around to make it seem like the facts of the story are different from what they are.

Well, perhaps I can explain why there was no Fall yet again.First, before eating from the Tree of Knowledge Adam & Eve, like beasts, were incapable of either sin or morality. When a beast suddenly turns on another, for example during mating season, and hurts, harms or even kills the other it is neither moral nor immoral. The beast has no knowledge of either right or wrong and is simply behaving normally.When GOD told Adam (and presumable Adam told Eve) they were morally like a one year old. They had no concept that even obedience to GOD was different than obeying any other authority figure. When later another authority figure, the serpent, tells Eve to taste the fruit, she does so, just as the one year old will take instruction from the most recent adult authority figure.This is born out in two other passages and the whole series of events after the two become aware of right and wrong. Their first thoughts are then "Ooops, we screwed up" and they hide themselves, and even try to shift blame (She told me to eat it; the serpent said it would be okay). The result is that Adam & Eve become more like God than the other beasts.Genesis 3: Note that God says directly that they have become more like Gods and that because of that, they must be sent away from the Tree of Life and kept away from it. Original Sin is simply not a concept that all accept. I do not believe that there is any such thing, and neither did all of the Jewish scholars that lived with the story for far longer than any Christians. Again, reading the story in Genesis I find nothing that says that conditions within the Garden were not changed. GOD says: Cursed is the ground. Not cursed is the ground outside the Garden, but cursed is the ground.The tale of the Garden of Eden is IMHO a "Just So Story". It is presented as a way of explaining certain facts of life, just as the tale in Genesis 1 explains why we have a seven day week and take the sabbath off. Actually the Tree of Life is mentioned earlier.Genesis 2: and it is specifically the Tree of Knowledge that Adam is told to leave alone while he is told that he may freely eat from the Tree of Life.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think anybody is "twisting" anything.I notice that Percy reads in a lot of "implications" that aren't really there, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Yet I approach the story without preconceived "implications" and you call that a "bizarre interpretation".The facts of the story include:

1. Women have pain in childbirth.
2. People work hard for a living.
3. People don't like snakes.

None of those facts indicate a change in circumstances.Any pre-existing circumstances are not part of the story. They may be "implied" - i.e. part of some people's preconceived notions - but they are not among the facts of the story.Edited by Ringo, : Spellling.

---

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

It doesn't indicate a change? That was the whole point, that life was changed. That was the punishment.

Of course not.Eve hadn't had any children yet. How could pain in childbirth be a change? They had been placed in the garden for the express purpose of tending it. How could growing their own food be a change? That's just your preconceived notion.(And how come you get to talk about "the whole point" but I don't?)

---

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

Then why were they punished?

I found a good side by side comparison of the conservative and liberal interpretations of Genesis.Genesis 3: The rise (or fall) of humanity, and original sinHere's an example:

quote:

---

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

---

There are more comparisons if you follow that link.I'm having trouble deciding which interpretation is correct. I'm not sure but it seems that the conservative position starts with the fundemental assumption that God is omnipotent, omniscient, loving, and just and you can't make sense of the text without accepting that first. It also reads so Christian theology back into the text (ie the serpant = satan.) I'm not sure what fundemental assumptions the liberal position makes yet.

No, it's not. Anybody can see that God is changing things because of their behavior. What, you think he's saying, "Why did you do this?" "Well, I was beguiled." "Okay, you will give birth as normally, etc."

Does anyone have information on how Jewish theologians reads the text? Thanks.Edited by Clark, : No reason given.

Eve had had no children. There can not be a "change" before the first child.
What part of that do you not understand?

---

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