The Fall of Man? (yes, AGAIN)

[one_raven]

The subject of the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man has come up recently on a few threads, so I decided to give the argument a home of its own...

I have been giving this some thought.
What could be the "message" or lesson to be learned of the story of the "Fall of Man"?

Why would God have even placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (Hell, why would he have even CREATED the trees) if he didn't want them to eat of it?

Although I agree with a LOT of what Snakelord says, and I think he is an extraordinarily intelligent person I have to disagree that they did what God fully expected them to do and what they were created for.
That makes it all pointless.
Regardless of whether or not it is "true" or historically accurate, the Bible was written for a purpose.
It had a point.

The only reason I can see for God to have created the trees, placed them in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat of them would be that it was some sort of a test.
A test of what, however?
As Snake (and others, including myself) has said... Contrary to seemingly popular belief, it could not have been a test of morality because God had not imbued Adam and Eve with a sense of morality. That is the WHOLE POINT of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Morality <u>IS</u> the <b>Knowledge of Good and Evil</b>!
So, what was he testing?
Well, look at his words...
NIV Genesis 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

God was giving man a choice:
Mankind could stay in this blissfully ignorant paradise with God to serve and obey him if he so chose.
His other option was to go it alone. To seek knowledge on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp free will.

Man chose to reject the guidance of God and forge his own way in the world.

As far as man knew, by rejecting God's guidance, he could be ending his life altogether.
From God's perspective, man chose to risk death rather than stay under his wing.
Man decided to listen to the serpent rather than God.
Man turned his back on God.

What was it a test of?
It was a test of man's courage, fortitude and drive to be independent.
Man had free will and had proven that he had the impetus to act upon the free will against the advice of God, even at the risk of his own immediate peril.
God knew that if man had access to the Tree of Life, that he would wholly and completely reject God because he did not need him anymore. With eternal life and self-sufficient morality, what purpose would God serve?

Adam and Eve is a story of the coming of age of mankind.
The kids leaving the nest.

Throughout all of the Old Testament if there is one recurring theme it is man's rejection of God's wisdom and guidance time and again.
Adam and Eve was just the beginning.

 

[enton]

I would just like to recommend, that is, if you would like to ask questions.
Go here and ask him, the only sensible preacher in our time http://angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli.php .

 

[one_raven]

I would just like to recommend, that is, if you would like to ask questions.
Go here and ask him, the only sensible preacher in our time http://angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli.php .

Thanks, but no thanks.
If he comes here and shares his opinion, I will be glad to discuss things with him.

That is interesting. Your avatar looks like a mix between Charles Manson, Cat Stevens and Dennis Miller.

It's Manson.
I guess Cat and Dennis look like him?

What about my post?

 

[one_raven]

Don't trust men with your apple tree.

The Tree of KofGE is a test.

But a test of what?

And how long do you think they were in the nest?

That's a good question.
It seems that starting about 600BCE there was an explosion of "Self Determinist" philosophy worldwide. When people really started to cling onto ideas that mankind is in control of his own destiny rather than at the will and mercy of God(s).
Zarathustra, Lao-Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Xenophanes, Pythagoras... the list goes on.
The Tanakh (and the story of Adam and Eve) was written before that, however, and 600BCE was closer to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekial, who also started to lean towards personal notions of human ethics, rather than simple mindless mandates of action from God.

It seems to me that it is a story on the nature of man, rather than specifically the actions at that time.
When did the nature of man turn from animal instincts, to rational thought and reason searching for answers to the unknown by turning to God(s)?
Anthropologists are still trying to answer that, and that's one of the reasons I want to study Anthropology.

Perhaps it was a *warning* of what was to come with the culmination of human knowledge, wisdom and rationality.

And it continues into the New Testament with man's rejection of Christ.

Good point.

 

[geeser]

Man chose to reject the guidance of God and forge his own way in the world.

you've missed the point, without the knowledge, what god may of said was just gooble de gook to adam, as was the aledged serpents words.

As far as man knew, by rejecting God's guidance, he could be ending his life altogether.
From God's perspective, man chose to risk death rather than stay under his wing.

he had no idea about life or death, he had never come a cross it had he, they were just words with no meaning.

Man decided to listen to the serpent rather than God.
Man turned his back on God.

see above answers, this is impossible.

 

[one_raven]

It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam was not a blithering idiot.
God spoke to him, why would he not understand the words he was speaking?
He may not have known that what he was doing was "Evil", therefore did not desereve to be punished or branded with being a sinner, and I don't think that WAS the intention of the story.
What he DID know, however, is that God, his creator, parent, mentor... the one who taught him EVERYTHING he knew told him that if you do this you will die. (Why would he not know what death was? He knew animals, they are not immortal.)
The serpent told Eve that she would not die, rather she would know Good and Evil and become like a God.
They both decided to believe the serpent rather than God, therefore chose to risk death and turn their backs on God in the pursuit of independence and free will.
It wasn't a "sin" to disobey God, because they did not know what "sin" was (not knowing Good from Evil), but it WAS a rejection of God and his protection and guidance.


My point, just in case I didn't make it clear, is that this was not a story about two people, it was a parable about mankind and its self-awareness.
Mankind rejecting God's rule to embrace self-determinism.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

It's an interesting theory, however I will point out at least one critical flaw.

You claim that the choice they were given was for independence, free will. However, the error of this is that they already had free will, independence. First, simply because they had the freedom to choose disobedience, but also because the "Image of God" is a phrase that implies free will. Humans, according to the genesis story, were created with free will, we know this because we are told that God made man in His own Image and Likeness.

Like I said, it's an interesting theory, but it fails on at least that one account.

 

[geeser]

God spoke to him, why would he not understand the words he was speaking?
He may not have known that what he was doing was "Evil", therefore did not desereve to be punished or branded with being a sinner, and I don't think that WAS the intention of the story.
What he DID know, however, is that God, his creator, parent, mentor... the one who taught him EVERYTHING he knew told him that if you do this you will die. (Why would he not know what death was? He knew animals, they are not immortal.)

My point, just in case I didn't make it clear, is that this was not a story about two people, it was a parable about mankind and its self-awareness.
Mankind rejecting God's rule to embrace self-determinism.

then it an extremely bad parable, and were is it written it's a parable.

give it some deep thought and then could you explain to me, how two people, with no knowledge of good and bad ( no morals) could understand what a god was saying when it said what was good to do and what was bad.
and how would adam know that dying was bad.

 

[one_raven]

then it an extremely bad parable, and were is it written it's a parable.

I disagree.
Perhaps you just do not understand it?

give it some deep thought and then could you explain to me...

Please do not condescend to me.

how two people, with no knowledge of good and bad ( no morals) could understand what a god was saying when it said what was good to do and what was bad.
and how would adam know that dying was bad.

I thought I already did.

First of all, God did not say "This would be bad" nor did he say "You were bad, so this is punishment".
He simply said, "This is the consequence of your actions."
He DID tell them there would be consequences if they ate from the Tree, and there was.

Let's say you tell a child who does not know Good from Evil (but does have a vocabulary and understands what you are saying) that if they touch the stove they will be burned.
When the child burns himself when he touches the stove is that punishment from you for the child being bad? Of course not, it is simply the consequence for his actions.

As I said, I don't think it has anything to do with them being good or bad at all.
As I pointed out...

It wasn't a "sin" to disobey God, because they did not know what "sin" was (not knowing Good from Evil), but it WAS a rejection of God and his protection and guidance.

You claim that the choice they were given was for independence, free will. However, the error of this is that they already had free will, independence. First, simply because they had the freedom to choose disobedience, but also because the "Image of God" is a phrase that implies free will.

Good point.
Though I am not sure how much free will an innocent child who is entirely dependent upon its parents really has from a practical point of view, technically, they do have the ability to disobey, so I suppose that is at least limited free will.
Perhaps saying it was a choice for self-determination would be more accurate.


I was talking about this with my girlfriend today, and she brought up an interesting thought.
God did not lie to Adam and Eve when he said they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (though he may have been being less than totally forthcoming).
They DID die because of it. Because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were banished from the Garden of Eden, therefore no able to partake in the fruit of the Tree of Life. Thus, they died.
The serpent, as well, was not lying, nor being totally forthcoming in the matter. Their death was not directly due to them eating the fruit, rather indirectly due to that and directly due to God's banishing them from the garden.

It still stands, however, that God said to them, "Either you stay with me here in blissful paradise with me for eternity, or you go it alone and die."
If God were to allow them access to the Garden of Eden and immortality, they would have no need for God whatsoever. They would have become like Gods themselves -immortal and in charge of their own destiny, morality and decisions (self-determinate).

Eve, who grasped for self-determination and offered it to her husband was not the being who cast "Original Sin" on mankind, rather she was the first hero of the Bible because she gave mankind it's most precious gift.

 

[Raithere]

The only reason I can see for God to have created the trees, placed them in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat of them would be that it was some sort of a test.

What possible reason would God have for testing anyone?

The reason for a test is to confirm whether or not the subject understands some concept or has the ability to perform some task.

But God reputedly knows everything. He would not have to give you an Algebra test because he already knows how much Algebra you understand and how much you do not understand. There is therefore no reason for God to test anyone.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I was talking about this with my girlfriend today, and she brought up an interesting thought. God did not lie to Adam and Eve when he said they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (though he may have been being less than totally forthcoming). They DID die because of it. Because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were banished from the Garden of Eden, therefore no able to partake in the fruit of the Tree of Life. Thus, they died.

But God did lie. He did not simply say, "you shall not eat for you will surely die". What he said was this:

Genesis 2:17 "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (emphasis mine)

Neither Adam, nor Eve died the day they ate from the Tree. They lived several hundred years more.

In contrast:

Genesis 4 - 7 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

God lied. The serpent told the truth.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

Since the phrase "image of God" does not imply free will, beyondtimeandspace's point is irrelevant.

That is rather an absurd charge and I feel motivated to quickly disqualify it.

Any notion of free will is anthropocentric. Logically then, any assumption that God has "free will" is absurd since the claimant cannot even produce an explanation of how a non material "being" (already, a contradiction in terms) can possess what is strictly a material attribute. In the event of such silence, we can safely say that an interpretation of "created in God's image" as a bestowment of free will is straw grasping. This, of course, doesn't bring into account the contextual difficulties.

Moving on to the original post, we see again that the Genesis account is indeed anthropocentric. The only way for the "test" to have been genuine is for the outcome not to have been fixed; this we can agree upon. Since Genesis makes no claim that God is omniscient, we'll regard that counterargument as superfluous (for now).

The fall of the First Couple cannot signify a rejection of God's wisdom. Again, Genesis makes no claim that they had any inkling of the extent of God's wisdom so we can't make that assumption. In fact, it was not a test at all. As far as what Genesis tells us explicitly, God gave Adam and Eve a choice of living (in Eden) or dying. And this is critical: it was not a commandment, but a suggestion. I remember having made this argument back in my early days and I will reiterate:

Someone says "You must not eat bright fruits in the forest, for when you do, you will surely die." This is obviously not a command, it is a suggestion, or more accurately, a warning. Therefore if you choose to eat bright red fruit from the forest, you are not "rejecting" per se, but rather using your own initiative. And using your own initiative, instead of someone else's, has never been a sin (in most cases). So that theologians are foolish for characterizing "The Fall" as an instance of human rebelliousness. You can't rebel if there is nothing to rebel against; Adam and Eve never disobeyed a commandment since they were never commanded to begin with.

Obviously then, when someone says"You must not eat bright fruits in the forest, for when you do, you will surely die" they are not testing you. They are giving you advice. Again, Adam and Eve neither passed nor failed a test because there was never a test to begin with.

Now, earlier, I conceded that in most cases using one's own initiative is not a sin. In God's case, it was. We see the jealous and angry, but merciful God showing compassion on the Two by casting them out instead of letting them die. This was the first lesson the tale sought to teach, that of God's mercy. We also see the "petulant" God, who is infuriated when His recommendation is cast aside and the lesson here is a parallel between parenthood with humans and parenthood with God.

A mother might recommend to her son: "Don't wear the blue shirt, the red shirt makes you look better" It's obviously not a command, or a test, but when the son goes ahead and wears the blue shirt anyway, the mother becomes angry (or hurt) because her recommendation was not taken seriously. We see this parallel with God. He is hurt when, in all His glory, the puny humans cast aside His Fatherly advice and lashes out by cursing them with all manner of afflictions in childbirth, agriculture, etc. Like the mother, even though He is angry, He still loves them and so does not let them die.

They will instead be allowed to live and reap the consequences of what they have sowed, like any human parent will do.

 

[one_raven]

But God did lie. He did not simply say, "you shall not eat for you will surely die". What he said was this:

The NIV says:
Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I think the NIV is a much better translation, personally. You?

Let's say that God did lie and the serpent told the truth...
My argument still stands that this was not a test of morality, nor a punishment for sin.
Simply the consequence of rejecting God.

But God reputedly knows everything. He would not have to give you an Algebra test because he already knows how much Algebra you understand and how much you do not understand. There is therefore no reason for God to test anyone.

That is RC doctrine, and like much of RC doctrine, not necessarily Biblically sound or valid.

Perhaps significant, perhaps not...
The Tanach does not have "section titles". "The Fall of Man" is stictly a Christian thing. As far as I understand it, the Jews do not see this act as an act of sin or something to be condemned.

 

[one_raven]

Excellent post, §outh§tar, but I have to take issue with the idea of punisment.

A mother might recommend to her son: "Don't wear the blue shirt, the red shirt makes you look better" It's obviously not a command, or a test, but when the son goes ahead and wears the blue shirt anyway, the mother becomes angry (or hurt) because her recommendation was not taken seriously. We see this parallel with God. He is hurt when, in all His glory, the puny humans cast aside His Fatherly advice and lashes out by cursing them with all manner of afflictions in childbirth, agriculture, etc. Like the mother, even though He is angry, He still loves them and so does not let them die.

They will instead be allowed to live and reap the consequences of what they have sowed, like any human parent will do.

It is simply the consequences of their actions, regardless of God's "feelings".
Rather than the red/blue shirt analogy, think of it as a father telling his son that if drives recklessly, he will die.
The son disregards his father's advice, and drives like a nut.
He gets into a nasty car wreck and is paralyzed for life.
That was not his father punishment, simply the cost of disregarding his advice.
The sharp edge of self-determination.

 

[superluminal]

Uh... god? Adam? Eve? Snakes?

So it's a story about man's coming of age. Just when and how did we come of age? Really? It's not a parable, it's just a simplistic story, a myth. Just like Athena popping out of Zeus' head in full battle gear. Seems like an awful lot of discussion on the deep philosophical ramifications of something so simple.

People made up all kinds of goofy stories to tell around the fire at night simply because they were bored. The holy books of most religions (if not all) are collections of nifty campfire tales.

In Nordic mythology we have the "World Tree" Yggdrasil.

Lord Śiva also seems to have popped out of the the forehead of Lord Brahma.

Go figure.

 

[one_raven]

Since the phrase "image of God" does not imply free will, beyondtimeandspace's point is irrelevant.

I agree, but the ability to disobey, or disregard God's advice DOES imply at least some level of free will, does it not?

 

[one_raven]

So it's a story about man's coming of age.

That's the question I am posing.

Just when and how did we come of age?

Read my post about 600BCE above.

It's not a parable, it's just a simplistic story, a myth.

I disagree.
The Tanach was a book of laws, history and philosophy of the Jewish people.
It has a great deal to say, whether or not you agree with it, and certainly had a purpose.
It wasn't silly poinless myths, it was a teaching tool.
I think it is extraordinarily interesting to try and determine what it was they were attempting to teach.
You can disagree, of course, but I love to study and discuss religions and philosophies (obviously).

Just like Athena popping out of Zeus' head in full battle gear. Seems like an awful lot of discussion on the deep philosophical ramifications of something so simple.

I don't think it's quite that simple, and I thinks it's fun.

 

[superluminal]

Okey Dokey. Enjoy!

 

[§outh§tar]

I agree, but the ability to disobey, or disregard God's advice DOES imply at least some level of free will, does it not?

Yes, but he is claiming their free will is a result of being created in "God's image". Which is something else entirely, not to mention Genesis never says anything about free will being an attribute of those created in God's image.

 

[§outh§tar]

Excellent post, §outh§tar, but I have to take issue with the idea of punisment.



It is simply the consequences of their actions, regardless of God's "feelings".
Rather than the red/blue shirt analogy, think of it as a father telling his son that if drives recklessly, he will die.
The son disregards his father's advice, and drives like a nut.
He gets into a nasty car wreck and is paralyzed for life.
That was not his father punishment, simply the cost of disregarding his advice.
The sharp edge of self-determination.

This can't be true since the earth being "barren", and the woman having pains in childbirth, and the man sweating all of his days in the field were all "consequences" which God never mentioned in the first place.

And remember, since Genesis never state it, we can't assume it.

Instead, we see that God became angry and cursed them with these things. If you say He did not do it out of anger then the sanity of a God who curses His own children, in addition to driving them out of Eden, just because they chose to make their own decisions, is brought into question. So saying Adam and Eve were not cursed because God was hurt/angry makes the very act nonsensical - there was no point to it.