What was Adam and Eve's sin? Were they set up to fail?

[bbyrd009]

Okay, so I really started this thread because of the following post that seems to paint Knowledge as being the problem...

If I'm understanding correctly that knowledge here was a problem, then I disagree. Knowledge was not the problem, but rather the issue was simple disobedience. Adam and Eve simply did not follow directions. They did their will over God's will. If this is not the case, then that gets into the 2nd question in the OP, as in, why did God put something bad (the Tree of good and evil) in the garden to begin with?

it may not be that knowledge per se is the problem so much as one believing that the knowledge they have is the truth, or iow “false knowledge,” what we might now call “dunning-kruger syndrome?”
knowledge brings sorrow
he who says that he knows anything does not yet know it as he ought
and as Yah did not seem very mad at them, even went looking for them after they had eaten, i would suggest that its less a question of blind obedience and more a thing where “this path will lead to your death,” which we might witness between most any two “opposers”

as to why Yah put something “bad” in the garden, a less literal reading suggests that it was simply a fact of life maybe? A concept that existed for human life, that animals dont seem to have, that a human would have to deal with, as in “who told you that you were naked?” see bc satan didnt, and Yah didnt, ergo it came from themselves, having eaten
maybe?

 

[Invited_Christian]

it might be that the knowledge of good and evil is not the same as eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, fruit there being “outcomes” or something similar? Paul rephrases it, in a widely misinterpreted (imo) passage, https://biblehub.com/lexicon/hebrews/5-14.htm
where, in typical Pauline language, meat (solid food, over milk) is portrayed as being perhaps beneficial, when actually Paul is possibly (likely) actually saying that “meat” (facts, maybe?) is for those who have eaten the fruit of knowledge.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Lexicon: Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

For a long time I did not think literal eating of some fruit had anything to do with the fall of man.
As you suggested previously, we should be willing to confessmaking mistakes.

Eventually, I decided that this must be a mistake and by taking the Genesis text as is I could be corrected.
I do not presume to tell you the chemistry or phsysiological aspects of this. I do not know.
But there were physical things in the Old Testmant which also carried spititual signficance and spiritual results.

The ark of the covenant was a physical artifact I believe.
How the Israelites (and others) interacted with it had real consequences.
The same I ascertain for the ark of Noah, rod of Aaron, the manna in the wildernes, the smitten rock in the desert, the good land of Canaan. These I came to believe were physical things with symbolism associated AND could render results in the historical sense with people's interaction with them. Why not a fruit tree in Eden's garden?

Perhaps it functioned like the morsal of bread that Judas ate. Simultaneously with his eating it in utter hypocrisy it says Satan entered into him.

Jesus answered, It is he for whom I will dip the morsel and to whom I will give it. And dipping the morsel, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And at that moment, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus therefore said to him, What you do, do quickly. (John 13:27,28)

So eventually I gave up my skeptical doubt about a forbidden tree. But if you press me on the SCIENCE of such a matter, I cannot explain.

But sin in the flesh had to come from somewhere. If I say this eating of a forbidden fruit is purely legendary, purely mythical it is more difficult for me to explain how this sin in the flesh came from.

And I came to believe that God had the job of communicating profound matters to millions of descendents of Adam through myriads of ages. He had to communicate the profound yet in terms in which even a child to the aged sage could readily grasp. So instead of seeing niavete in the account I see divine wisdom. "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."

 

[bbyrd009]

For a long time I did not think literal eating of some fruit had anything to do with the fall of man.
As you suggested previously, we should be willing to confessmaking mistakes.

Eventually, I decided that this must be a mistake and by taking the Genesis text as is I could be corrected.
I do not presume to tell you the chemistry or phsysiological aspects of this. I do not know.
But there were physical things in the Old Testmant which also carried spititual signficance and spiritual results.

The ark of the covenant was a physical artifact I believe.
How the Israelites (and others) interacted with it had real consequences.
The same I ascertain for the ark of Noah, rod of Aaron, the manna in the wildernes, the smitten rock in the desert, the good land of Canaan. These I came to believe were physical things with symbolism associated AND could render results in the historical sense with people's interaction with them. Why not a fruit tree in Eden's garden?

i would say bc we have “fruit” defined for us elsewhere?

Perhaps it functioned like the morsal of bread that Judas ate. Simultaneously with his eating it in utter hypocrisy it says Satan entered into him.

Jesus answered, It is he for whom I will dip the morsel and to whom I will give it. And dipping the morsel, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And at that moment, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus therefore said to him, What you do, do quickly. (John 13:27,28)

So eventually I gave up my skeptical doubt about a forbidden tree. But if you press me on the SCIENCE of such a matter, I cannot explain.

But sin in the flesh had to come from somewhere. If I say this eating of a forbidden fruit is purely legendary, purely mythical it is more difficult for me to explain how this sin in the flesh came from.

i wonder if dunning-kruger syndrome—which i am as susceptible to as anyone i guess—might be a great explanation for “eating the fruit”

or iow “sin” comes from judgement, and we develop ”morals” based upon a society coming together in judgement, that are different morals from other societies. Things that would lead to death in one society might not lead to death in another, seems like

And I came to believe that God had the job of communicating profound matters to millions of descendents of Adam through myriads of ages. He had to communicate the profound yet in terms in which even a child to the aged sage could readily grasp. So instead of seeing niavete in the account I see divine wisdom. "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."

strikes me as a great argument for understanding that allegory is involved tbh, although i confess that many of them are still beyond me. Noah is fairly obviously lifted from the epic of gilgamesh, manna is called “what is it?” in a barely disguised attempt to get people to go back to questioning (basically admitting “i dont know”) etc

 

[AgnosticBoy]

it might be that the knowledge of good and evil is not the same as eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, fruit there being “outcomes” or something similar? Paul rephrases it, in a widely misinterpreted (imo) passage, https://biblehub.com/lexicon/hebrews/5-14.htm
where, in typical Pauline language, meat (solid food, over milk) is portrayed as being perhaps beneficial, when actually Paul is possibly (likely) actually saying that “meat” (facts, maybe?) is for those who have eaten the fruit of knowledge.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Lexicon: Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

That helps to make it clearer. That takes knowledge out as being sin, and instead its the means of that knowledge that's the sin.

Can you imagine that story though? That must have been some experiment being dropped off in some garden on some planet, and told don't touch tree x and y.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

satan is actually “opposer,” which might be a good way to say “someone coming against you with facts,” understanding that there are always going to be competing “facts”
perhaps

I'd like to think in that case he was opposing God's commands. I wouldn't say that the Tree of Knowledge was in opposition to the Tree of Life. I'm still open to other interpretations.

 

[bbyrd009]

That helps to make it clearer. That takes knowledge out as being sin, and instead its the means of that knowledge that's the sin.

Can you imagine that story though? That must have been some experiment being dropped off in some garden on some planet, and told don't touch tree x and y.

well imo that is the danger of reading it as history, rather than as parable, meant to be understood on a different level

 

[AgnosticBoy]

well imo that is the danger of reading it as history, rather than as parable, meant to be understood on a different level

Would make a good topic!

 

[Invited_Christian]

strikes me as a great argument for understanding that allegory is involved tbh, although i confess that many of them are still beyond me. Noah is fairly obviously lifted from the epic of gilgamesh, manna is called “what is it?” in a barely disguised attempt to get people to go back to questioning (basically admitting “i dont know”) etc

I have never been too impressed with the Gilgamesh copy-cat theory. If something happened which was in the collective memory of ancient people, so what if there were other versions? So what if there were even presummably previously written versions?

Eight people came off the ark. The account spread among their descendents. The account was embelished here and there to meet colloquial cultural needs.

So when Moses penned down the true account of Noah's flood ( I trust ) it is no surprise to me if prior to then SOME other version was in existence. There is no compeling need to jump to the conclusion that Moses copycatted the Epic of Gilgamesh.

As I said before? Eventually we all will put our trust in somebody. I'll go with the Bible's account and regard Gilgamesh as a "previously written" perhaps version of the Noah's flood event. Incidently, there are from all over the globe versions of essentially a similar great flood.

As for the "What is It?" of the manna, that too is understandable as it was a type of Christ. Christ said He was the true bread from heaven. And the incarnation of God as a man had never been before. Christ is the reality of the manna bread which came down from heaven to give life to the world. And He truly is "What Is It?" being unique.

You see I think God is way, way ahead of the ball. He knew what He would do in becomming the incarnated Son of God "the bread which came down out of heaven." "I am the bread of life." He is wonderful and to us not like anything or anyone we ever experienced before -the Manna. "What Is It?" was a heads up allegory of this mysterious One - the mingling of God and man - Jesus Christ the Lord.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have never been too impressed with the Gilgamesh copy-cat theory. If something happened which was in the collective memory of ancient people, so what if there were other versions? So what if there were even presummably previously written versions?

Eight people came off the ark. The account spread among their descendents. The account was embelished here and there to meet colloquial cultural needs.

So when Moses penned down the true account of Noah's flood ( I trust ) it is no surprise to me if prior to then SOME other version was existence. There is no compeling need to jump to the conclusion that Moses copycatted the Epic of Gilgamesh.

As I said before? Eventually we all will put our trust in somebody. I'll go with the Bible's account and regard Gilgamesh as a "previously written" perhaps version of the Noah's flood event. Incidently, there are from all over the globe versions of essentially a similar great flood.

As for the "What is It?" of the manna, that too is understandable as it was a type of Christ. Christ said He was the true bread from heaven. And the incarnation of God as a man had never been before. Christ is the reality of the manna bread which came down from heaven to give life to the world. And He truly is "What Is It?" being unique.

You see I think God is way, way ahead of the ball. He knew what He would do in becomming the incarnated Son of God "the bread which came down out of heaven." "I am the bread of life." He is wonderful and to us not like anything or anyone we ever experienced before -the Manna. "What Is It?" was a heads up allegory of this mysterious One - the mingling of God and man - Jesus Christ the Lord.

so then you are free to go with that thing that you know—which i see some validity in btw—and i am free to go with what i dont know for sure, and remain in “what is it?” see

which also does not mean that you are wrong, of course; just that you might now be less open to any other interpretation

 

[bbyrd009]

Would make a good topic!

i agree, never been sure how to broach the subject though? I have no human witnesses to that, strangely, which is a problem. Im even curious how its possible that no other philosopher has introduced the possibility that Adam and Eve is us, in thoughts and emotions (or something)? I simply cannot be the first, imo. weird


https://www.psychologytoday.com › us › blog › hide-and-seek › 201703 › the-meaning-adam-and-eve

The Meaning of Adam and Eve | Psychology Today​

Adam himself emphasizes that Eve is as another self, indicating that man and woman are equal, or, at least, created equal: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh

ok, that helps some, even if i dont happen to agree with their “conscious/subconscious“ thing…doesnt mean that im right and theyre wrong lol