The first 3 chapters of Genesis

It's pathetic, Robin. They refuse to simply read the story and discuss what it actually says.You could always flunk students of yours who couldn't follow your simple assignment. That might not be any great satisfaction since they're just poor victims of modern education, but it would probably be a great pleasure to flunk these know-it-alls here if only you could.And they don't even have a sense of humor.

Robin is interested in discussing what the story SAYS, not what you think it means or why it was written. Perhaps his OP was not clear enough, but that's been the gist of the discussion since.

"Understanding" it is not the point. Simply grasping what it actually SAYS in so many words is the point.This is because "understanding" it does nothing but introduce fanciful speculations that have nothing to do with the text itself.Start with what the text actually SAYS. There is so much "understanding" here the text might as well not exist.This is apparently a bad habit introduced by modern text criticism.

You can skip the pedantic lecture about what interpreting means. I was responding to a specific assertion by NWR as I recall which introduced extraneous material to the text. Nobody's disputing that to read is to interpret, but what is going on here is playing fast and loose with what is actually written and refusing just to read the plain words.There seems to be something approaching a fear of the plain words here, as if they might say exactly what everybody doesn't want them to say. Amusing actually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And what are you going on about in this pedantic patronizing way?Please show how this is on topic or perhaps you and iano need to start another thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe I missed it, but if this is the case, how do you explain the passage about how God punished them for their sin? Pretty drastic punishment for a sin that was commonplace don't you think?Oh nevermind. You think they had the PROPENSITY, I get it, but hadn't sinned to that point?THAT propensity is known as free will to some of us. But after the Fall they lost that free will, no longer being in touch with God, a different kind of propensity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Original Sin itself is inherited spiritually, the propensity to sin; but some of its effects* would be inherited physically in the form of genetic diseases or vulnerability to disease for instance, very gradually accumulating over time.===============
Edit: * I say "some" because we are accident prone or subject to all kinds of things of a purely spiritual nature too. Not all of this is built into the genome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not that vague. Both trees are described as being "in the midst of the garden," but ONLY the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is explicitly forbidden.This clearly implies that the tree of life was available to them. How could this be in doubt?If you follow the logic of this, when God later disallows it to them, it has to be because of what their disobedience had done -- there is no other conclusion. The rest is conjecture but intelligent conjecture, to say that it was because they were now changed into sinners that God forbade the tree of life to them at that point, whereas while they were obedient there was no danger in their eating from it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, Augustine thought it was about sexual sin too, but there's a lot more to it than that. It wasn't sexual sin Adam and Eve committed, it was simply disobedience of God, disobeying a direct command.Nakedness in scripture is symbolic of sinfulness in general, rather than just about sexual sin. The blood of Christ, as also the blood of the sacrificial animals in the sacrificial system, is a "covering" that protected in some sense of "hiding" sin from God's view. The skins God clothed them in signify sacrifice in the same way, covering them, covering their sin, and demonstrating that death had to occur for the purpose. Also, the plan of the tabernacle, every bit of it, is symbolic of salvation through Christ, of Christ Himself, of a saved soul even, and the badger skins that cover it are part of the symbolism of sacrifice that saves.To "die in your sins" is to die with your sins exposed to judgment, without the covering of the blood of Christ. As He died on the cross with our sins all piled on Him as if they were His own, so that He could bear the punishment for them, so we may die in the garment of His righteousness thanks to the exchange He made there.With the whole context in mind, and especially the Ten Commandments, it should be pretty clear that their recognizing their nakedness was simply their recognition of their sinful condition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I really don't know what you are saying or asking. People have some odd ideas about what a "literal" reading of the Bible is. I read it according to what it is intended to convey. That's the only way I've ever claimed to read it "literally." Where it's symbolic I read it as symbolic and so on. There are some great studies available about the symbolism in the design of the tabernacle and the temple and so on. And they were "literally" actual buildings constructed in real historical time too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I'd answer that they were innocent, period. Knowing their nakedness simply means recognizing that they had sinned. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.