Adam & Eve to be blamed, or god!

What was the actual PURPOSE of Adam and Eve?Either to be animals in a petting zoo or to fall and start the race?The more I think about it, the more nasty the christian god appears.

I guess that would be your natural inclination since you are an atheist. To glorify God, prove his justice and righteousness to the angels, to create a unique spiritual species that will of it's own free will learn about God and reside with him in a personal relationship in eternity. I realize you enjoy a cynical viewpoint of all things relating to God, but you will never understand anything about what you are criticizing with this attitude.

but the brainwashing didn't take.Anyway so what's the answer? Animals in a petting zoo or stoogies set up to take the rap?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-03-2004 06:18 PM

Perhaps Hangdawg13's response to Charles Knight (in Message 62) about attitude isn't that far off. My own perspectives and attitudes clearly effect the way I read this story. As I've reread the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis (a couple times since this thread appeared), I cannot help but to see the main players in several different lights.The serpent can be seen as a devious tempter, clever liberator or simply a creature too smart for it's own good. Depending on how you read the serpent's words and what your perspective is on his motives, you can get at least these three roles. If he is God's sworn enemy then his words take on a sinister note. If he sees these humans as "missing" out on an important part of life then he's a liberator. As a liberator, he goads these creatures into defying God and taking what they should have had from the beginning. Or perhaps he's a know-it-all and wants to gloat.Adam and Eve are blissful naive and innocent. What are their motives for disobeying God? Are they experiencing a human weakness to want to be like God? Are they too naive to be blamed? Again different preconceptions about them can color their actions and words.Finally, we have God Himself. Mr. Knight sees Him as nasty. Hangdawg views His actions as those of pure righteousness. Rrhain has presented a case for Him as a lair. I, myself, bring a yet another view of God to the table. I see His actions as relating a vaulable lesson about life in general - It doesn't matter if we are aware of the results of our actions, we will often times have to pay the price for them anyway.When I read literature that deals with base human experiences like innocence, punishment and fairness, I often find myself projecting my own experiences into it. By reading the responses here, I can only guess that phenomenon isn't limited to me personally. OF COURSE, my own perspective could be fatally and drastically in err and their is only one way to read this account of Eve and Adam.Just some random pontifications for ya!
PM1KPS: What's up with Eve not having a name until the end of Chapter 3? I mean, I know when Adam says "woman" he's obviously talking about her but come on... doesn't she deserve a name before then?

Portmaster, you may be an atheist or agnostic, but I like your style. It's good to know all of you are not all bitter cynics. So true. This is where the role of the Holy Spirit comes in. Those who believe in Christ are guided by the Holy Spirit when they read. It is the Holy Spirit who correctly illuminates the scripture. If you want to make God out to be nasty, in your mind you make him nasty. If you are guided by the Holy Spirit, his righteousness is revealed. Also, if you believe the ENTIRE Bible is the inspired word of God, then the message is cohesive throughout the Bible, meaning you can take passages like the one in revelation associating Satan with the serpent and apply it here. This does not contradict what the original audience would see either. The original audience believed God was holy and would therefore view him in this light and the serpent as the tester or the accuser or the evil one. A good point. I guess if you do not believe in God, then you have ability to consider any interpretation valid. If you do believe in God, then there is only ONE correct interpretation. So I think a believer is the only one who is justified in believing that he has a correct interpretation.This is what makes me wonder why Rrhain and and Knight are so determined that their negative view of God in the passage is right. I mean if they don't believe in God or an absolute interpretation, what makes them think they have found the absolute correct interpretation depicting God as "Nasty"? It's like they're on a mission to defame God.Anyway, I appreciate your objective attitude. Well, before they sinned, there was no need to reproduce. They were immortal and had no need of a savior. It is only after they sin that God gives the curse of pains in child bearing and Adam declares Eve's name meaning "living, for she would become the mother of all the living".

quote:

---

Well, before they sinned, there was no need to reproduce. They were immortal and had no need of a savior. It is only after they sin that God gives the curse of pains in child bearing

---

Hangdawg,
Are you stating this literally or just explaining the text?Have you considered the naturalist viewpoint? Homo Sapiens developing simple technology and speech trying to understand the sometimes frightening world around them with the new found ability to create concepts. The concepts of spirits or forces in nature evolving into the concepts of gods.With the developement of agriculture and settled way of life not every one had to produce food and their arose a ruling class, soldiers and priests. The difference between the religions that are now dead or followed in other parts of the world is that Constantine adopted Christianity and the Holy Roman empire enforced it on Europe for hundreds of years and culturally indoctrinated europeans with Christianity.God is a concept that humans created. I'm not asserting here that God does or doesn't exist, but the books of the bible are stories made by humans to explain their world. Creation myths are common to most cultures, stories of how we came to be. Today science is using a different method to explore what the universe is and how it functions. Science doesn't have stories of dramatic clashes of personality. It uses mathematics which is not as exciting and much harder to understand. I'll admit finding the math tedious and am happy to let others crunch the numbers.All religions were created by people. But it's very common that people attribute these stores, thoughts, ideas to God, claiming either that they were inspired, or even that material was revealed.
Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was revealed.Looking at these books including the bible it is very clear these are human created. Dondan in another thread thought to prove the divine origin of the Koran by saying we couldn't write one tenth of it. Because of where he lives he is encultured to view the Koran as divine. Europeans are often encultered to think the bible is divine.But sometime read it as a book written by humans giving their struggles to make sense of themselves in the cosmos. It's an approximation of understanding.Look at the animal world there you will find animals laying eggs and mammals nurturing their offspring in a uterus until it's time to give birth. The apes give birth and humans give birth. It is labor. The priests came up with a story to explain that. And they weren't right but then how were they to know? And they attempted to control people with guilt so they could use that to demonstrate that people needed to obey them because people had messed up so much from being disobedient. What I'm saying makes sense and doesn't require believing things that are contradictory and implausible to the point of impossibility.Sometime look impartially at the discoveries and the concepts that science in the last say 400 years has developed to explain the things we've learned. These theories were developed to fit the evidence. Then look at the creation myth's of various peoples, look at the different religions and how people thought about themselves and the world 2000 years ago. A lot has changed. Science doesn't have the dramatic stories that so appeal to our attention and that makes it less appealing in many ways. But it has a consistency that is very appealing. It does contradict the old way of thinking in this culture and many people are unwilling to relinguish the old instituions and old emotionally secure way of believing. The differences between these paradigns is the substance of the debate here at evcforum.Past my bedtime now,
lfen

Sure Eve is a very suitable name for her but I'm wondering, humorously I admit, what conversations between her and Adam must have been like before she has a name.woman: Hey Adam dear, whatca doing?
Adam: Oh hey... woman. Ah nothing just getting ready to get a bite to eat.
woman: I'm kinda hungry myself. Adam, you sit right there and let me get us some tasty morsels.
Adam: That's great. Thanks... woman.Seems a little weird, conversationally speaking thanx
PM1K

Neither... I'm just saying I can't rule it out. Yes, very much so in the last few months.

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

If you do believe in God, then there is only ONE correct interpretation.

---

So why do so many people who do believe in god seem to come up with different interpretations about what Genesis means?Surely you're not saying the Jews treat the scripture the same way as the Christians do, are you?

quote:

---

This is what makes me wonder why Rrhain and and Knight are so determined that their negative view of God in the passage is right.

---

What makes you think I don't believe in god?For the umpteenth time, just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. It also doesn't mean I don't believe in the Bible.It simply means that you and I disagree about the nature of god and the point of the Bible.

quote:

---

Well, before they sinned, there was no need to reproduce.

---

Not according to the Bible:Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.God is increasing the pain of childbirth for Eve. He is not making Eve capable of childbirth to begin with. She already had that. Instead, her punishment is that it will be excruciatingly painful.And if that still isn't enough for you, remember that god told them directly to have children:Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.What do you think "be fruitful and multiply" means?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

What is translated "thou shalt surely die" in the KJV and ASV in the original is simply "muth muth".

---

Incorrect.I gave you the original Hebrew. Why didn't you pay attention?Genesis 2:17: u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut:

quote:

---

It has something to do with the prefixes or suffixes. I don't remember all the details in the Hebrew.

---

I do.That's why I wrote them down for you to look at.Weren't you paying attention?

quote:

---

Rrhain erroneously assumes that every time a translation of the bible says, death, it is a physical death.

---

Incorrect.I gave you specific meanings for what the root "muwth" means in Message 50: Weren't you paying attention?No, not every time the Bible mentions death does it mean a physical death. Not even every time the Bible uses "muwth" or its inflections does it mean a physical death (nations not being alive, they cannot experience a "physical" death the way humans do.)What it does mean, however, is the cessation of existence, usually before one's time. It is the word used when talking about the death penalty, which is definitely a physical death.

quote:

---

IOW, in the day they ate the fruit they would immediately die spiritually

---

If that were the case, they wouldn't have used "muwth" for "muwth" means premature cessation of material existence.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 responds to portmaster1000:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If one were in a state of perfect innocence does that innocence ever end?

---

​

This is the question Rrhain refuses to entertain.

---

Incorrect. I have directly addressed it:Of course innocence can end...but not through the deliberate intent of the innocent. A rock can fall on your head, but that doesn't mean you wanted a rock to fall on your head...even if you deliberately pulled on the stick that loosened the boulder that fell on your head.Actions have consequences, yes, even if you don't understand what those consequences are...including punishment for those actions. Punishment for actions, however, requires analysis of the intent of the action in order to determine the appropriate level.That's why we distinguish between first and second degree murder as well as among murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. That's why we don't impose criminal sanctions upon those who do not understand the difference between right and wrong.Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and lost their innocence. They even ate from the tree deliberately (it isn't like the snake told them to eat from the tree or the fruit fell in their mouths accidentally.) But they didn't sin when they ate from the tree because, being innocent, they were incapable of sin.

quote:

---

IMO the knowledge of good and evil did not lie in the tree itself, but in the action.

---

Then why did Adam and Eve not know of good and evil until after they ate from the tree?And why was their panic over being naked rather than over disobedience to god and the only commandment they had ever been given?

quote:

---

Instead it was the decision to disobey God

---

One cannot "disobey" if one is innocent. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve didn't have that since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

Their intent was to be like god and disobey him.

---

Chapter and verse, please? Where does Genesis even remotely hint at this?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

portmaster1000 writes:

quote:

---

Sure Eve is a very suitable name for her but I'm wondering, humorously I admit, what conversations between her and Adam must have been like before she has a name.

​

woman: Hey Adam dear, whatca doing?
Adam: Oh hey... woman. Ah nothing just getting ready to get a bite to eat.
woman: I'm kinda hungry myself. Adam, you sit right there and let me get us some tasty morsels.
Adam: That's great. Thanks... woman.

​

Seems a little weird, conversationally speaking

---

But that's precisely what the Bible says:Genesis 2:23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Her name was, indeed, "Woman" until after the fall."Adam," but the way, mean "Man." Eve is the first person to have a name that isn't a biological descriptor.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Are the Hebrew words for Man and Adam the same? Or just the meanings?I've also been wondering about how the knowledge of good and evil passes from Adam and Eve to their offspring into the rest of the human race. Is it instinctual? Does this knowledge reside in our genes? Do Adam and Eve have to teach it?Any thoughts on the perpectual state of forbidden knowledge?thanx
PM1K

portmaster1000 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Adam," but the way, mean "Man." Eve is the first person to have a name that isn't a biological descriptor.

---

​

Are the Hebrew words for Man and Adam the same? Or just the meanings?

---

Um, you're not looking at it correctly. We call the man in Genesis 2 "Adam" because there is no other word used to refer to him: 'adam. It may have been his name (he was, after all, given the task of naming everything), but the name and the word would then be the same thing.Genesis 1:27: And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.va.yiv.ra e.lo.him [b][i]et-ha.a.dam[/b][/i] be.tsal.mo be.tse.lem e.lo.him ba.ra o.to za.khar u.ne.ke.va ba.ra o.tam:Genesis 2:5: No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;ve.khol si.akh ha.sa.de te.rem yih.ye va.a.rets ve.khol-e.sev ha.sa.de te.rem yits.makh ki lo him.tir a.do.nai e.lo.him al-ha.a.rets [b][i]ve.a.dam[/b][/i] a.yin la.a.vod et-ha.a.da.ma:Genesis 2:7: Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.va.yi.tser a.do.nai e.lo.him [B][i]et-ha.a.dam[/b][/i] a.far min-ha.a.da.ma va.yi.pakh be.a.pav nish.mat kha.yim va.ye.hi ha.a.dam le.ne.fesh kha.ya:And so on and so on. Contrast this to the concept of "man" and "woman" used here:Genesis 2:23: And the [b][i]man[/b][/i] said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [b][i]Woman[/b][/i], because she was taken out of [b][i]Man[/b][/i].'va.yo.mer [B][I]ha.a.dam[/b][/i] zot ha.pa.am e.tsem me.a.tsa.mai u.va.sar mib.sa.ri le.zot yi.ka.re [b][i]i.sha[/b][/i] ki [b][i]me.ish[/b][/i] lu.ko.kha-zot:So the word "'adam" means "man," but because the very first one was never called by anything else, it has become the name which we use for him. It might not be his actual name, but our inheritance of the story has fused the two into the same thing.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

portmaster1000 responds to me:

quote:

---

I've also been wondering about how the knowledge of good and evil passes from Adam and Eve to their offspring into the rest of the human race. Is it instinctual? Does this knowledge reside in our genes? Do Adam and Eve have to teach it?

---

You're asking for a rational description of what is, essentially, a piece of magic. Eating a piece of fruit suddenly gives you psychological comprehension of the moral foundation?The ability to grasp post-operative logic comes at about seven years of age. You can't really stop it unless you subject the child to severe abuse and neglect with absolutely no interaction with the world.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!