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

I don't think there's any point in trying to convince a professed Christian that there was a fall. I guess Christianity must be a much bigger tent than I thought. Even we Unitarians don't go as far as this - while we're very liberal in our Biblical interpretations, that Genesis describes a fall is beyond doubt for us.I have no objection to anyone taking whatever interpretation they prefer of the Bible (as long as they keep it out of science classrooms), and I use the labels people prefer to use for themselves, so if you want to call yourself a Christian then I will too, but when it comes to grouping people by belief within my own mind you won't be among most others who call themselves Christians. Me neither, but I'm not a Christian. Like I said, it doesn't seem worthwhile to argue this with a Christian, but looking at this from the outside and seeing you say this for the first time (for me) I now understand why other Christians find your professed Christianity hard to fathom.My understanding of the Christian interpretation of Genesis is that there was a fall brought on by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and the New Testament interpretation is that that sin propagates through all generations to all men from whose consequences they cannot be saved without accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. My further understanding is that this belief is foundational to Christianity, but maybe I'm wrong about that. I do find the possibility that some sects of Christianity are further "out there" than Unitarianism a bit mind-boggling. While your Genesis interpretation is not the literal interpretation of Creationists, it seems just as restrictive because it contains little flexibility. While Genesis doesn't recount God saying he wished Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of life, you take this as indicating he didn't mind them eating of this tree. Were this really true then his later concern would make no sense.A reasonable flexibility would allow that like most stories, the recounting is neither perfect nor all-inclusive of all events. Again, this is a very restrictive interpretation. People telling stories don't generally attempt the level of precision you're assuming this story has. Or are you just trying to force Creationists to be as literal in interpreting some passages as they are about others? True. So what. You require that every little detail be spelled out? You seem as insistent and literal in your own inflexible interpretations as the Creationists are in theirs.The story in Genesis likely went through many retellings and reformulations before finally being written down in imperfect form. I can't see how there could ever be any "correct" interpretation, and my own interpretation is just one among many, but I personally don't see much to recommend either yours or the Creationist's.--Percy

Yes, it does. So what. How much precision and exactness are you assuming was achieved in passing down and recording this story? A great deal, it seems, as much as the creationists.The opposing inflexible interpretations of you on the one hand and creationists on the other is one of the best arguments I've seen that it really isn't appropriate to approach Biblical exegesis in this way.--Percy

Well, you've been going round and round about your Christian views with various people for some time. There's no reason for me to expect that anything I happen to say will get the point across. But your rejection of fall from grace and original sin is not all consistent with my view of mainstream Christianity.I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but in my view you definitely do not believe the same as mainstream Christianity. I don't blame people for becoming frustrated when you say things like, in effect, "I'm a Christian, and there's no such thing as fall from grace or original sin."I can see how talking about Christianity with you can be like examining Christianity through fun-house mirrors. It should be fun, but instead of looking at the funny image in the mirror and saying, "Look at that funny distorted view," you're saying, "What's funny or distorted about it." It doesn't even seem to give you pause. If you don't see it then you don't see it, and I guess all anyone can do is just walk away shaking their heads.--Percy

Do you really want to make the argument that the beliefs of Christianity are defined by what you personally happened to learn while growing up in an evangelical church? Do you really believe that argument by personal anecdote has significant value for this topic? If I'm wrong that fall from grace and original sin are central beliefs of Christianity then this should be easy to show since Christian theology is not a closely held secret, but is this the way to go about it?According to the Wikipedia article on original sin, some Christian groups deny original sin altogether (evangelicals not among them, however). I didn't know that. Those arguing against the concept of original sin might want to examine the arguments of these groups. Going back to Message 37, Jar says there was no such thing as "the Fall", primarily because he does not accept the concept of original sin. And you think that is closer to actual Christian belief then what the creationists are saying? Are you and Jar claiming that your views are somehow representative of mainstream Christianity? This is like bizzaro-land.--Percy

Uh, no. I don't blame people for becoming frustrated with statements like this. You can have your own individual view of Christianity, but you can't say that what constitutes mainstream Christianity is just a matter of personal opinion. If that were true then by the same token what constitutes mainstream science would also be a matter of personal opinion.Certainly there are always issues on the margins, but fall from grace and original sin aren't among them. Your views on these issues are *not* congruent with mainstream Christianity, at least not here in the western world, which is what I hope we're talking about.So argue your point of view all you like. But if you characterize your unusual views (for a Christian) as mainstream, or claim that obviously mainstream views are not mainstream, then people will become frustrated. I know I am. There *is* a dominant Christian theology out there, and it isn't like it's ambiguous on the main points concerning the fall and original sin.--Percy

I didn't say "the beliefs of Christianity" are monolithic. Sheesh! I can see why the creationists are getting frustrated with you guys.I was maintaining the context of the discussion, which is that there is a mainstream of Christian belief, and that the fall and original sin are part of that belief, your personal story notwithstanding. Once again this mischaracterizes what I said and seems to forget the context. I was continuing to talk in the context of a mainstream of Christian belief, of which the fall and original sin are a part. I said, "the central beliefs of Christianity", not the beliefs of individual Christians, which I'm sure vary all over the block. Once again, I did not say it was monolithic. I was again continuing to talk in the context of mainstream Christian belief. This isn't hard to grasp. There is a central core of belief to Christianity. Well, if personal anecdote is your way, go ahead and argue ineffectively all you like. I thought the context of my comment was clear, but next time I'll be careful to put the "mainstream" modifier in front of Christian each and every time. I don't know what the creationists are saying about theology. I almost never come over to the religious forums. I'm responding to what you and Jar are saying about Christian beliefs. I'm saying that mainstream Christianity accepts the fall and original sin. I'm saying you guys are out of the mainstream, and that it is bizarro-world of you to try to make it seem otherwise. I'm sure there are many facets of Christianity I know nothing about. If you want to educate me about them then go ahead, but if you want to level insults then take it elsewhere.As I've already said, the fall and original sin are part of mainstream Christianity. If this isn't true then personal anecdote can be very illuminating, but it isn't effective rebuttal. Accusing people of ignorance isn't effective rebuttal either, and it's against the Forum Guidelines. Great! I presume that includes you and Jar? I'm not deciding what is mainstream and what is not. That's not the difference between us. The difference is that I believe there's a mainstream, and you apparently believe there isn't or that it's just a matter of personal opinion.--Percy

No, of course not. None! Are you sure?I'm not an evangelical Christian, you know. If I didn't state their beliefs in quite the right way then please make some allowances, but isn't my description pretty much what they believe? The fall, original sin, being saved by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Let's see. Catholicism accepts the fall and original sin, and salvation through Jesus Christ.And do you mean Orthodox as in Eastern Orthodix? That would be an eastern Christianity. I alluded to the fact that some sects view original sin differently when I mentioned the Wikipedia article on original sin in a previous post. But my points are about mainstream western Christianity. But I wasn't responding to them or the things they said. I was responding, at least originally, to Jar, who denies the existence of original sin. By any rational standard, on the issue of original sin, someone who accepts it is much closer to mainstream Christian beliefs than someone who doesn't. And arguing that what is mainstream and what isn't is just a matter of personal opinion, or that there is no mainstream, is just simply denial.--Percy

You're wallowing in weasel words. The mainstream of Christian belief, the set of core beliefs, if you will, is not a matter of personal opinion.Is there perhaps some confusion in this conversation? Are we talking past each other? I'm not talking about the beliefs of individual Christians, which I'm sure are very widely varied. I'm talking about organized religions with stated theologies. Identifying the common elements is a lot of detail work, but it's work that's already been done. The presence of the fall and original sin in most versions of Christianity cannot be in doubt. It is not a matter of personal opinion.--Percy Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

I can see that the phrase "mainstream Christian beliefs" is misleading. I think both you and Jar thought I was referring to what most actual Christians believe. I think I also referred to them a couple times as "core beliefs", but this probably wasn't sufficiently clarifying. This explains why you thought argument by personal anecdote was relevant. Sorry about that.What I meant by "mainstream Christian beliefs was the beliefs that are part of the stated theologies of the majority of organized Christian religions. The fall and original sin fit this description. It isn't a matter of opinion.--Percy Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

The fall and original sin were not mentioned in the OP, which says it is about "traditional interpretation" of the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Robinrohan isn't explicit, but the reasonable expectation is that he meant the traditional interpretation within Christian theology, and this is because the whole thread springs out of Robin's misunderstanding of Jar. In another thread Jar said there is no fall described in Genesis, and Robin interpreted this to mean that there was no punishment. Jar clarified this in Message 20. Clearly the context is Christian interpretation (or reinterpretation, if you prefer) of Genesis.The fall is a key part of Christian interpretation of this story. Non-Christian interpretations of Genesis (Jewish, as you mentioned) take other interpretations. And apparently there are Christians who do not accept the fall. But just because some Christians hold this view doesn't turn it into a Christian belief, which is where the digression sprang from. There are Republicans who don't accept the traditional Republican stance on abortion, but that doesn't make pro-choice part of the Republican platform. Since the thread sprang out of Jar's denial that there was a fall, and since the fall is a Christian belief, I think it would be a bit difficult to continue discussion if Christian beliefs are left out of it.Anyway, I think Robinrohan and Jar agree more than they might think. While Jar disagrees about a fall, he accepts that God *did* punish Adam and Eve (again, see Message 20). The remaining disagreement seems relatively minor. Jar believes Adam and Eve were banished from Eden because God feared they would eat from the Tree of Life, while Robinrohan includes the additional reason that it was part of the punishment.Jar makes some additional comments about the Garden of Eden story, calling it a "Just So Story" and so forth, but I don't think those are relevant to the topic.--Percy

I touched on this in an earlier post, but I think it bears repeating. I think the difference between Jar and Robinrohan isn't about whether Adam and Eve were punished. Both believe they were punished. But they disagree about whether expulsion from the Garden of Eden constituted part of the punishment.Jar believes that God's action of cursing the ground so that men would have to toil all their days encompassed the entire world, including the Garden of Eden. Men would have to toil all their days whether they remained in the Garden of Eden or not. But that Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil caused God to realize that they might also eat from the Tree of Life and become as gods themselves, and so he was forced to prevent this possibility by banishing them from the garden.Robinrohan believes that the Garden of Eden was excluded from the curse, that it continued to be a paradise, and that God had to banish Adam and Eve from the garden not only to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, but also for the full punishment to take effect.Whether by design or not, Jar's clipped and cryptic style represent a significant obstacle to discernment of his position, in my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he replies to this post saying that I've got it all wrong. After all, it just wouldn't do for anyone to know what Jar actually thought about something! --Percy

You mean that your and Brian's interpretation is that it would have been okay with God if Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life? He wasn't worried that they might live forever, but he didn't want them to know good from evil?I like this interpretation. Not sure if I'll make it my own, but it has some obvious appeal.--Percy

To which jar replied: To which you replied: Which is a ridiculous position, as Jar went on to point out. There's also an additional contradiction. If eating once from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil conferred that knowledge forever, then eating once from the Tree of Life would have conferred immortality forever.There is no possible way to reasonably insist that there is only one single correct interpretation of the story. Both you and Jar assume that God issued no stricture against eating of the Tree of Life. Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't.You assume Adam and Eve had already been eating from the Tree of Life. Well, maybe they did and maybe they didn't.You also assume the benefits of eating from the Tree of Life were temporary. Well, maybe they were and maybe they weren't.Jar assumes that Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of Life from sheer dumb bad luck. Well, maybe it happened that way and maybe it didn't.Jar also assumes that the Garden of Eden was as affected by God's cursing of the ground as the rest of the world. Well, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.Jar concludes that God banished Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life. This seems unarguable: One thing you can say for certain, God punished Adam and Eve for eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There is insufficient information to conclude that the banishment from Eden was part of that punishment.--Percy

Are you daft? He said just the opposite in the message just prior to mine (Message 207): You and Jar agree much more than you disagree.--Percy