The first 3 chapters of Genesis

I'll assume you are mainly concerned with the Adam and Eve story (rather than the separate creation story of Genesis 1).My take is that this an early form of a "Just So" story. It was intended to explain the human condition in general. But its main emphasis was on human consciousness and what distinguishes us from other animals. Thus the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the central theme.The tree of life is merely a side issue, to fill out the plot.

You cannot separate what it says from why it was written. The latter provides the context for understanding the former.

Understanding is grasping what it says. The OP does ask about interpretation.Text doesn't actually say anything. Rather, it conveys a message from the author. Thus one must consider the intent of the author. In this case it is particularly difficult, because we would need to consider the intent of the original author when the story was part of an oral tradition, the intent of those who embellished the story over the years while it existed only in the oral tradition, the intent of the writer who committed it to written text, and the intent of the translators. If "modern text criticism" is an allusion to deconstructionism, then I have no part in that.

I'm wondering whether there is a confusion here between the uncontroversial idea that Genesis describes a fall, and the rather more controversial doctrine of original sin.Here is a quote from the wiki article on original sin, suggesting that there are many churches, some of them quite conservative, that do not accept the doctrine. It is my impression that jar's objection is to the doctrine, which appears to have originated with Augustine, and was later expanded by Calvin.

The restoration movement churches would usually be considered evangelical.

Wrong. Most people who acquire that knowledge do not become child molesters. Thus your claim of causation is mistaken. Incidently, you are off-topic. Still off topic. However, as any parent can tell you, infants are extremely selfish, and this selfishness decreases as they mature and gain knowledge. Now we can get back to the topic.Those who disagree with the doctrine of "The Fall" (or "Original Sin") are not denying that sinfulness is part of human nature. Rather, they are claiming that it was always part of human nature, even before the alleged fall. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. So they were already sinful.That there was no fall, that human nature already had a propensity for sin, is as plain as the nose on your face.

Note: I am avoiding further comment on the off topic issues of child molestation and selfishness. I welcome you to those who reject the doctrine of original sin. Glad to have you on board. For the claim of that doctrine is that a person is already sinful, before having committed any sins, merely by virtue of the sins committed by Adam and Eve in the garden.However, I do think you misunderstood what I said in Message 137. I said that humans have a sinful nature. That is not at all the same as saying that humans are sinful. It is only the claim that there is a propensity for committing sins.

You are inventing that. It is nowhere to be found in the text.I had thought you were a Calvinist believer in predestination