What If, the serpent had not been able to Con Eve into tasting the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, of Good and Evil? And, What if Eve had not talked Adam into doing the same thing? What would the outcome be and how would it effect life for mankind today?
Is that a trick question? If we are to believe the story in Genesis that all people are descended from Adam and Eve, it would be a moot point. We wouldn't be here.
But if we didn't agree, to some extent, on the definition of good and evil, right from wrong; we couldn't function as a society. There would be chaos and mayhem, although we wouldn't recognize it as such.
Emile: Why is it a moot point and why would we not all be here? God never forbade Adam and Eve from having children, just the opposite God instructed Adam and Eve to be "Fruitful and multiply".
As for "Good and Evil" mankind would not know of such things. Evil would not exist, and only Love would abide. Furthermore, I rather doubt sickness would even exist, and definitely death would not. There wouldn't even be need for money.
Emile I don't think you thought this through you just jumped at the question.
I did think it through Dave. Doesn't sound as if you did. Without the ability to judge right from wrong, anything goes. Our choices would remain the same. We would have no motivation to be kind and loving. No motivation to share. Anything perceived as good by our standards now would be on the same playing field as that which is bad.
Have you ever met someone who lost the ability to make sound judgments due to an accident? I have. It isn't a pretty picture.
Love your rose colored glasses Dave, but you might take the blinders off and think this through.
Without introducing right and wrong, good and evil, we would have God to guide us in His ways and since God's way is love, we would have no problems what so ever. I don't need to be motivated to do good. I simply do it. Sounds to me like you are sticking up for satan and his ways.
Emile: Go back to the original question. To begin with if Adam and Eve did not eat of that tree, sin would not exist, death would not exist, pain and suffering would not exist. All of mankind all would still be alive and on earth and living in happiness and harmony under God.
Ok. I reread the question. My answer remains the same. For the reasons already stated.
Emile you just don't get it. If Adam and Eve did not disobey God's only rule, there would be no sin, there would be no suffering, there would be no death, we would all still be living and not dying in the Garden of Eden living eternally happy.
I'm confused, but this sounds like we would have no free-will.
Is that it? NO FREE-WILL?
getitrite: We don't have free will even now. No one does, not me not you no one. You want to be known as "getitrite" then get it right!
What we do have is the freedom to choose or "Free Choice" None of us has the power to "Will Anything".
Only God has this sort of power.
Free to live in paradise..
Free to run and never grow tired or,be sick ,or best of all never die!
Free to love with no risk of being misunderstood.
Free to express joy,praise,converse with loved ones.
Peace forever -wow ,no heartache
Walk,talk,live with God.
You forgot FREEDOM to roast in everlasting hellfire.
Isn't God wonderful?!
Dave, I've given you the opportunity to think this through. Now, it looks like I have to explain it. Yes, by the story there would be no death; HOWEVER
Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil allowed them to see the difference. Let them understand the consequence of their actions. No where is it implied that they were perfect. It is only said that they don't know the difference. These are not the same.
It's like when a child bites another child. They don't know that what they did is wrong, until we teach them it is. Adam and Eve are shown to be basically, spoiled brats. Living in paradise, having everything they could ever desire, with no reason to have to think about their actions because their doting father loves their every action.
So, if there were 7 billion Adam and Eve's with no knowledge of what is right or wrong; acccustomed to getting everything they want, how do you think that's going to play out? No one would obey God's rules because to disobey is wrong. They don't understand right from wrong. It would be a free for all.
At this point you're thinking 'Yes, but God is there.' No he isn't. According to the story, God was not a constant inhabitant of the garden. Had he been, Eve would not have been alone with the serpent. God knew the serpent hung out in the garden. He knew who and what the serpent was. He knew what he was capable of and yet he allowed two people, without the knowledge of right and wrong, to hang out in the company of the serpent.
When the story says the serpent talked Eve into eating the apple she didn't understand that it was wrong. She had to eat the apple before she could know right from wrong. When she said 'God said don't' they were empty words because the concept was beyond her ability to understand that to not follow that direction was wrong. To make it worse, she didn't understand what was meant when he said 'if you eat it you will die.' She had no concept of mortality.
The stage was set for her to do absolutely nothing other than to eat the apple.
Now, I know it's always fun to show your piety and love for God, but common sense tells you that this story is not to be taken literally. You can't blame 'Satan'; you can't blame Eve. That isn't the point of the story.
Awesome explanation. I like it. <tips hat>
I've come to understand it like this. From the beginning Adam and Eve had the freedom to put their will before Gods (Freewill/Free Choice). However, until they sinned, they had no knowledge (familiarity or experience) of evil and its consequences; much like a young child having only its parents word as to the dangers of fire; until they feel it's heat for themselves [see Deuteronomy 1:39]. Some children will take the parents word for it, others will learn the hard way. So too Adam and Eve. Having up to now lived in harmony with Gods will, they had no experience (knowledge) of anything to the contrary. However, they too had the choice, trust God, or learn the hard way.
Yet the parallel with young children stops there. For Adam and Eve were adults, with adult reasoning and full control over their will; they were not ignorant spoilt brats. They made a reasoned choice in conflict with Gods, and they reaped the promised consequences.
If the Bible has any message for mankind, it is, trust God or reap the consequences.
So, let me get this straight. You parallel Adam and Eve to children, and then when it doesn't follow what you want to believe you switch them up to adults. It doesn't work that way. They either had the ability to reason or they didn't. The story is clear. They did not know the difference between good and evil; ergo, no ability to reason.
It works perfectly well, actually, because we are not discussing their reasoning ability, we are discussing their innocence. We can be childlike in some ways and adults in others. The New Testament calls adults to become as little children (Mtt 18:3). Jesus was not instructing people to give up their adult reasoning, he was calling them to embrace the opportunity he presented to make them innocent again.
Even though we disagree on this point, the story remains the same; even if you think they had some degree of reasoning ability.
The reason for the story in the first place is, probably, because someone wondered. Why are we different from the animals? You see the 'sin' as Eve's; but to me the writer was encapsulating the essence of femininity when he placed Eve at the foot of the Tree of Knowledge. Why? Several reasons.
The knowledge of good and evil would benefit women more than man in the beginning. I realize it was a patriarchal society, and there were still plenty of injustices to women; however, laws and rules governing a society would protect the weaker. To know wrong, is to put us one step closer to doing what is right.
The writer has Eve formed from the rib of Adam. She is one step removed from the dust. She is that much closer to God. Eating from the tree was represented as being closer to the level of God. Understanding who and what he was. Women are more spiritual than men. They think about the question more. They want to be closer to God. That is why Eve, not Adam, stood at the foot of the tree; waiting for the opportunity to take a bite of the apple.
The 'bite from the apple' represents a spiritual awakening of sorts. We became that which makes us human. It is the writer's answer to 'Why are we different from the animals?' It isn't sin, it is an answer to a simple question.
As I said before; I see the sin represented as what they did with the knowledge they attained. The punishment is simply to explain to the reader that for every wrong you do there are ways to justify it in your mind. You can argue the point and may put up a good defense, but ultimately you will have to live with the consequences. Attempting to lay the blame at the foot of another serves no real purpose; other than to make yourself look bad.
At this point you're thinking 'Yes, but God is there.' No he isn't. According to the story, God was not a constant inhabitant of the garden. Had he been.
you are right God was not a constant inhabitant of the garden but previously He was. God did not put adam there and then leave him alone, Gods intention was to fellowship with adam this is why God created human lifeforms. By the time of your reference adam and eve were already doing their own thing, hence the separation from God and his absence.
When she said 'God said don't' they were empty words because the concept was beyond her ability to understand that to not follow that direction was wrong.
Recall adam named the animals, had a working vocabulary and a fair intellect. If God said don't do something one has to imagine that adam and eve both understood the word don't or Gods command was moot and if Gods command was moot then disobedience was also moot. So they understood don't and they knew it was wrong.
'if you eat it you will die.' She had no concept of mortality
Again if you think God is talking mumbo jumbo to his creations your thinking is flawed. Part of Gods fellowship with adam and eve was to educate them. He taught them what herbs to eat, he taught them how to tend the garden, etc.. when he said the word die, he told them what die meant.
If adam and eve had no understanding of right and wrong then their act to disobey is moot and any reprimanding action by God is unjust and God is not unjust.
As for me and touching on Gods love. I do not think that God slammed down the mallet and pronounced sentence leaving adam and eve jaws on the floor after one transgression. How many times did God show mercy on the OT saints? I believe that adam and eve gradually chose more and more time to be separate from God until fellowship was broken and God said, "adam where are you?" and like us, even today, this separation is what causes us as it did them, to cross the line and choose sin.
Not a literal story? absolutely. There is more here than meets the carnal thinking mind.
Those are assumptions on your part. I don’t see any evidence to lead me to believe this is true. God made a garden and placed Adam in it. What percentage of time God spent in that garden is open to speculation.
Again, you assume too much. When my son was three I let him name the dog. The ability to name something does not equate to any level of maturity or having a fair intellect. It indicates that Adam had the power of speech.
I’m afraid your calling my thinking flawed doesn’t equate to truth. You see it differently. Not a big surprise. You are reading too much into the story, searching out sin. The entire point of the story up and through the bite from the apple was to share a vision of why we are different from the other animals. The bite was inevitable. Had it not been taken we would never have asked the question ‘Why are we different’ in the first place.
It is not a moot point. The moral point of the story begins with their actions after they become aware of the difference between right and wrong.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was saying this. But, you take this story literally, so of course you see it as a grievous and harsh judgment.
Your mind is the carnal one. You see sin, you see wrong; you see rebellion. Everything you are using to pass judgment is in the earthly sense.
I see a story where the writer believes a loving father allowed his children to grow up. He saw them as worthy of the knowledge of right and wrong, so allowed them the opportunity to know it. Sure, we all want our kids to stay kids forever; but that isn’t realistic. He was willing to let them ‘fall’ so they could mature and grow.
Adam and Eve were not in communion with God in the garden. They were children. Once they made the decision to ‘grow up’ by eating the apple, they had to be judged by a different set of standards.
Seeing sin in the story is showing that you haven’t grown up in your understanding. You are still laying blame. You are still on the level of a child who just learned the meaning of right and wrong, yet unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions.
Sorry you have to stomp your little foot, so to speak. The fact that you choose to not take the story as I see it to be means little more than that we disagree. Childish insults hurled at me only undermine you, not me.
If this is how you see it then okay.
One of the things i love about God is that he allows us to be different. I see something, you see something, someone else sees something but each person always seems to get a definition they can accept. We are not all at the same level of understanding and the bible is certainly a very special book.
I did not think my post to you hurled childish insults in future i will have to remember your special sensitivity.
I am glad these types of questions are not salvation questions. Our rewards will not be dependent upon how we interpreted genesis 3.
have a nice day
Emile: I guess you can't get it. Neither Sin nor death would exist if Eve refused to listen to the serpent. She would not have tried to tempt Adam and they would have lived happily ever after.
Rapunzel, Rapunzel let down your golden hair.
We don't see eye to eye on this Dave, but your fairy tale will still have a happy ending.
The first crack God has with his creation and it turns out like a Shakespearean tragedy.
Seems kind of hard to believe too, most women would never go near a snake let alone listen to it talk.
At first encounter no, but after frequent encounters the possibility of chit chat could happen. Say she ran away the first time but being as this said tree was in the midst of the garden, she probably passed by it again and the snake did not run after her, but said, "your hair looks perty" after that she is just 3 martinis away from sewing aprons to cover her genitals.
Your problem is you aren't christian. The christian male blames everything on Eve. It's quick, and to the point. Not too taxing on the brain.
That would be kinda strange as eve sinned first but God held adam responsible and Paul said "by one man sin entered the world".
I did notice that when God perceived Adam was alone he said "go name the animals" before he created the woman, Which is interesting, because if God put off making the woman then did God create all the universe and Eden for one man?
food for thought
My (womanly) guess is that God was doing man a favour having him name the animals ,he knew one day he would need to recognise them for hunting.
Not strange at all. Look at the question of the OP. Look at your responses. You guys blame Eve. If that's strange, then I would say you guys are the strange ones, by your defnition.
This story is not to be taken literally. (Back to the 'if there is a God, he gave you common sense' argument) It is human nature to arrogantly believe that the universe was created to be man's oyster; but I don't think anyone can honestly argue that stance.
If it is as you probably believe and Moses did, indeed, record the first five books then you have to look at whose benefit he was doing it for. The Israelites were a wild and uncivilized people. If you doubt, read the laws. They had to be told not to do some things that no human could conceive of today. It isn't as if he could have stood on the side of the mountain and shouted out the Big Bang theory. It would have been pointless.
The creation story is a simplistic explanation to appeal to and reach the minds of simple people. The story of Adam and Eve is meant to answer a simple question.
If there is a God, nothing is that simple; but man was when the story was recorded. We are not that simple today. We are intelligent enough to see a well written myth when we read it
The snake was symbolic of a sly,smooth talking,two faced liar.
Oh my ,they are still with us. Perhaps the more modern term might be ,the 3 P's
Ever heard the term snake in the grass? Its symbolic right.
But, it was a talking snake and not a person or do you have some other evidence to suggest it was a person?
Just because you cannot understand "Snake Language" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Eve might be a multi-lingualist and speaks snake.
This serpent is no ordinary snake! It is Satan himself.
Im taking Gods word on that.
yah God just gave them the garden as a rouse, a dangling carrot, something to remember when they were pullin weeds outta the harsh ground, while their son was killin abel.
Thats love dave, according to some people.
and all because he made them a little bit too young that they needed to "grow up".
You really don't spend time thinking about much. Do you? Humanity, according to the narrative of the Bible, is in the process of growing up. Well, some of us are. Some are still stuck trying to figure out how to get back to Genesis.
God said don't .... and adam and eve went Huh,, what mean don't, grog no understand...and of course God did not explain what He meant.
gen 3:3,4 eve says : GOD SAID ... we must NOT eat ....
If you will stop putting so much effort into making attacks at people and just read the scriptures again Im sure you will find words you had not noticed before.
Or are you just gonna repeat... they didn't know what DO NOT meant.
Well, not saying you don't know what you are talking about. You simply make me wonder what was gained by eating the fruit. I googled the definitions of good and evil since that was the name of the tree. Its fruit would give her the knowledge of good and evil, by the story as it is written.
There are a million for good, so I just have the ones here that seem pertinent.
e·vil [ v'l ]
morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong
harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset
causing misfortune: characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck
virtuous: having or showing an upright and virtuous character "You're a good man, Joe."
kind: having or showing a kind and generous disposition "She was always very good to me."
obedient: well behaved and obedient "The children are always good when we take them out."
Now, assuming that the fruit had to be eaten before she knew that the bite was wrong, would cause harm or bring about anything that could be remotely characterized as bad.......
And she had to eat from the fruit to understand the concept of obedience; didn't understand that it would be virtuous to follow God's command; didn't understand the concept of well behaved......
How is it that she knew what she was doing was wrong? Empty words. He said don't, but she did not posess the traits necessary to understand the meaning or the consequences prior to the first bite of the apple.
Now, this is assuming that you believe what you argue is the word of God, over what you want to believe.
It's always great to see things the way we want to; but the story line is fairly clear.
It is an impossibility that these things should not happen, for by those occurances this entire world was created for the sons of God to grow unto perfection.
Kess: I disagree with you nothing is impossible for God.
Your disagreement noted....
so conclusion is ' it is impossible any of these things should not occur, for they are purposed and fulfilled by my God'.
but to you and your god it is very possible that he can and has made a mistake......to that I agree.
Kess: I never stated that God made any mistake. That is your presumption. You love twisting things around to suit your way of thinking but you cannot fool a "Child of God"
That was a con, as you put it, because the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning
(2 Corinthians 11:3)
Her mind was corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that was due to her head, Adam. The principal of headship was involved. It could have turned out any number of ways, but that leads only to speculation of what if?
If then she was not conned, she could have submitted to her head, Adam where as Adam got his instructions from his head, Jehovah God. The principal of headship was set awry by her actions, because when she ate of that fruit, Adam not present is still in control. He as head is appointed as such by his creator.
Again what if? He could have corrected her and brought her to court, but remember man was not created for the sake of that woman, but that woman for the sake of the man. Eve lost her sign of authority (the principal of headship) by her actions. (1 Corinthians 11:9-10)
lookseenow: You are not dealing with the original question. You are simply trying to confuse the issue at hand. Adam was not Eve's head. Adam called her bone of my bones seeing her as his equal, and sine God did not correct this point God agreed.
Simply put, we'd still be in Eden, as you suggested in your following responses.
I'm still amazed that people believe that story. Are people so blinded by faith that they believe that Adam and Eve are plausible? Forget science, forget faith, forget everything except common sense. Does this seem like a realistic method for how mankind began?
In the context of God, 'common sense' is a mute point. For God, by his very nature, is not common (ordinary) and is beyond anything we might sense (perceive or fathom) within the natural universe. If God exists, then 'plausible' takes on a much larger context. If, however, you reason from the premise that he does not exist, plausibility shrinks to only what you can sense; what is common to you.
Ok. It's not a mute point. It might be moot. Moot. Commit that to memory. And why in the world would you invent a deity that didn't expect people to use common sense?
Moot, not mute... got it
He does expect us to use common sense in regards that which is common to man, but rules of reason that apply to us have no bearing on a being who lives outside the material universe; he is not limited by that which restricts us. He made nature and its rules, but, unlike us, has the authority to break any of those rules he wishes.
As a nonbeliever I could argue this on several levels, but let's assume you are right. As a human, you are stuck in the physical world. You have to resolve the reality of what you know with what you want to believe. And that is all faith consists of. Wanting to believe.
If there is a God, I can only think he would expect his creation to use their intellect to the greatest of their abilities. If there is a God, he gave you common sense for a good reason. Failure to use it is done at your own peril.
Yes ,God made everything for our good,but like you say ,how we use ,or misuse this knowledge will be to our benefit or peril.
spiritual common sense not scientific common sense.
What i love and appreciate about God is that he is never boring. He doesn't just do things the same way all the time but He is super creative. Creativity just flows from Him like He cannot help himself.
parting some seas one day, raising a pillar of fire to light the night. Smart bombing the enemy with huge hailstones, designing a portable tabernacle of a huge size from gifts from egyptians, circling jerichos walls and then yelling and blowing trumpets to topple 12 foot thick walls, all that typology in the OT that reveals itself in the NT. Sacrificing his son, oh boy when abraham finds out that happened, ab is gonna be so happy he is gonna cry alligator tears. The list goes on and on. Need help to fight 300 men in battle, lost your sword, here pick up this jawbone of a donkey. Got an army of 10,000 coming after you, take 3,000 men, no wait, have them drink at the water and those that lap from their hand take those but not the others... got 300 men.. okay go get em!
geez, im all goose bumpy
parrster: I hear god explained like that all the time "is not common (ordinary) and is beyond anything we might sense (perceive or fathom) within the natural universe" But what evidence do we have to support such a description? To me, it seems like another way to try and explain something that can't be proven.
I hear what you're saying cooldad. But there is evidence. When I used the term 'God is beyond anything we might sense', I meant in the empirical way; of the faculties (sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch) by which we perceive stimuli. I cannot point to anything sensed empirically and say "there is God". However, what my senses do provide is sufficient a priori evidence to make a "commonsense" conclusion that there exists a mind that is over and above this universe. Science cannot prove otherwise.
Faith is not so much the step taken toward accepting there is a God, that is logic (commonsense), but rather it is the step taken toward actively seeking to have a relationship with him, to the end that we might know him.
This may fly in the face of many who will not believe in God while difficult questions remain unanswered (difficult to them at least); for example: if there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world.
Ironically, maybe he will only answer if they first believe and earnestly seek him.
But see, you speak of having a relationship with God. How is that possible? How can anyone have a relationship with someone who doesn't exist? You pray to God, but he doesn't talk back to you. People may say that God talks to them, but that has never been proven and never will be. We have a plethora of recording devices available to us and I have yet to see God on Youtube. I'm not trying to be a jerk-off, but that's how I feel.
I definitely don't care to change what anyone else believes in, I just want to try and understand how people come to their belief system and how they justify it.
I have some major fundamental problems with people using faith to explain the unexplainable.
There is no solid evidence that proves god's existence. There is a large amount of credible scientific evidence that supports the non-existence of a higher power. The Big Bang and Evolution have far more credible evidence to support them both being fact than any so called proof to support there being a god.
I don't think there is a right way to answer these hypothetical questions. Because it did happen and so there is just no telling what the outcome might be if it hadn't. But i am not very good at philosophical questions. So maybe I just don't posse the ability to think outside the box on this one. That could be the real secret to my views.
Another thing, its just to hard to say. I mean the story was written as a lesson. I don't know if the story would be worth anything if it had been told differently.
Well I've only met a few talking snakes, but I've never believed anything they have had to say. They seem like slippery customers, and there is something untrustworthy about them. Never trust a talking snake, especially if he is a politician.
Sherlock: It is not because snakes are slippery that they are so difficult to understand. It is because they think and speak a totally different language than man does, but yes they are untrustworthy.
I also know what you are saying about politicians. They too speak a different language and cannot be trusted.
I always thought snakes and politicians were the same thing, to be honest.... Well more so here in Britain.
Yeah sorry about the mix up lol Bet you it becomes a best seller as well
Emile: I know what you are saying, and you're right of course,BUT, the whole thing is based upon "What If" What if they didn't screwup? How would life be different. They always had the choice but they chose wrongly and now all of mankind has to suffer for their mistake, so what if they didn't screw up? Sin would not have entered into the picture. Cain would not have murdered his brother. Jesus would not have had to die. Noah would not have had to go through the flood. Abraham, Job etc. would not have had to be tested because Adam and Eve made the right choice and they would have passed down their knowledge from generation to generation. Lucifer, satan would have been banned from EDEN. Therefore we would all be still living in EDEN and not have to worry for anything for our creator would be right there with us. We could see God, talk with God, know God.
Dave, you just don’t get it. If you consider the act of eating the apple a sin and a screw up, then you have to blame God for allowing the stage to be set in the first place. Eating the apple wasn’t a screw up. It was, according to the story, exactly as it was planned to be.
Eating the apple was the moment of our awakening. The sin was not in eating the apple. The sin was in their behavior once the apple had been bitten into.
What was the first thing they did once their eyes were opened? Once they had the ability to judge right from wrong. They lied.
What was the second thing they did? They attempted to transfer blame. They scrambled to make sure God saw that yes, maybe they had done wrong; but it wasn’t their fault. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake. But no one would take responsibility for their own actions.
Those were the sins.
Staying in the garden was never an option.
Everyone seems to forget about the Tree of Life. That is why Adam and Eve couldn't stay in the garden...God didn't want them eating from the Tree of Life and becoming immortal.
I had forgotten that too. Glad you brought it up.
One thing I enjoy about this fable is the levels of morals and lessons you can learn. Its a great story.
Staying in the gargen was never an option!
I would have to agree.
And "IF" they had not eaten the apple, and they had many children, what happens when one of these children eat first of the tree of life and then the tree of knowledge?
Emile: It all boils down to an act of obedience. If adam and Eve obeyed God, and refused to listen to the tempting of satan the serpent. We would all be living and aging in EDEN rather than outside the garden and there would have been no sin and no death.
Dave. That is not the point of the story. You are laying blame. Just as Adam and Eve did.
You drew the wrong conclusion to begin with, so can't see past that false start. The story is not meant to say 'Gee wiz. If only others hadn't sinned my life would be grand.' But, that's what most christians get out of it, so they continue to look about, in search of other people's sins.
There are hundreds of layers of valuable lessons in that story. Learning how to lay blame wasn't meant to be one of them.
Ah, but Emile. Couldn't "Adam" and "Eve" in the Garden of Heaven refer to you and me? "Them" is "us."
I agree that many so-called Christians look for the dust mote in the eye of another rather than taking the beam out of their own eye. Humility is a hard path to take. I know the value of it and still find it difficult at times.
I agree with you. Blame was not one of those lessons. Perhaps responsibility was.
After Adam and Eve died in the Garden (and they most assuredly died on the day they ate of the forbidden fruit), they lived a mortal existence in physical reality. Gen. 5:2 talks of Adam being both male and female (all of humanity).
Gen. 1:26 talks of man being created in the image of God. That would make us inherently spiritual (non-physical), immortal sources of creation. You and I took the "bite of the apple" and fell into a deep sleep. And when Prince Charming arrived 2000 years ago, most of us did not recognize him.
Some fairy tale! When one can see beyond their fragile, Homo sapiens shell, things get a little simpler, but only if one retains humility. I still have way too much ego. Alas!
Interesting perspectives now allow me to throw my hat into the ring. For those who are Christian believers
the end of mankind's age means mankind would no longer be faced with problems we have been encountering since evil unveiled itself.
New International Version (©1984)
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
New Living Translation (©2007)
He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever."
We have most certainly been given free will for when you are free to choose you have free will.
Definition: free will
power of independent action and choice: the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q … ORM=DTPDIA
Even though eve was conned into eating the fruit she as well as Adam had the freedom to ignore or reject the lies they were being told. From my perspective since there has never been a creature like human beings I feel the garden of Eden was a test to see if mankind would follow and accept God or disobeyed him. Before some of us jump up and act like this is absolutely unusual and inappropriate it's been done by us for a very long time-How you ask? Has anyone ever heard of parenting children? Children's to God is their parents. Needless to say they are not yet ready for free will so lots of decisions are made for them and they trust us to make those decisions.
We accept the reality we live in simply because we created it-meaning we've created this distrust, we've created stealing, we've created lying, we created hate so the reality we live in is normal simply because we created it.
That's right, blame everything on the talking serpent.
serpent is rendered nchsh. In hebrew pictograms: n is nun = a harmless fish, ch is chet which has two meanings one is a fence or wall the other wisdom, understanding and knowledge or common thought process, sh is shin or sheen = teeth chewing.
notice the first and last n and sh are opposites with common thought process in the middle.
notice now the word commonly used as satan is shtn, for those who have read the hub on this the following is repeat for you
in shtn, we have sh = sheen, t = tet a coiled serpent ready to spring, and n = nun. These sh and n are what the ancient jews referred to as yetzer natures, the yetzer hara = sh and yetzer hatov = nun with a coiled serpent in between the two.
can we blame things on a literal snake? no. Can we blame things on human nature to choose? yes.
The fact that this tree was in the midst of the garden or allegorically put, this tree was in their face or something they could not avoid. We can then notice that adam and eve had the ability to choose, they always had free will and their ability to choose good and evil was always present in them. So the 'snake' not enticing them to eat (partake) of the tree (way or path) was a battle we each face today - nothing has changed.
Very nice, Brother. So, nchsh seems illustrative of "intent" or "willfulness" (ego?).
Perhaps the "tree" of knowledge is similar to the "tree" of life in that both are conceptual matrices. The Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" is a matrix with ten nodes for descending from God and returning to Him (female and male paths, respectively). I found this "tree" embedded in Genesis.
And the "tree" of knowledge might merely refer to all physical dichotomies. Genesis mentions only one of these -- good-evil, but the others might be wisdom-stupidity, generosity-selfishness, compassion-indifference, victim-perpetrator, and others.
"Knowing" in the biblical sense sometimes refers to laying with, sleeping with (as in sex), for wallowing in the dichotomies of physical existence, the spiritual self can no longer see by spirit, but only by physical continuity (through the Homo sapiens hosts). I experienced a return to spiritual "seeing" for a brief period in 1971. I could see all the colors and textures that my human eyes could see.
The "original sin" seems to be one of accepting physicality as our master, rather than creation through spirit. We chose the physical construct, ego, as our pseudo-self. And it does seem to me that ego is the root of all evil. Behind every dark thing, selfishness lurked.
i can imagine the problems faced with translating pictograms. nchsh has this weird meaning of bright shiny one which i am sure satan believers quickly pick up on, but pictograms form a picture they are not a word as we know words today. Eventually the pictograms were made into sounds and then the sounds were used to make words, which eventually dismissed the pictogram element altogether.
father in hebrew pictogram is a picture of an ox head and a tent or a home. The ox representing strong leadership because they pull the load best and the tent represents a home, hence father means in pictogram a strong leader of the family and nothing else. In our language a father can mean a drunken dead beat weak leader because we use sounds and not pictures. I believe the pictograms are far more accurate and intentional in meaning than what they evolved into.
nchsh and shtn have letters in common and i believe they both refer to human nature.
Hebrew 5175 defines nchsh as a snake (from its hiss). From its hiss is interesting because its not a snake by its appearance but rather from what it sounds like. As if we are hearing it but not seeing it. Eves conflict seems to originate from inside her as adam, who was with her, did not stop her, but surely he must have been looking at her while she pondered this (literal) tree. He must have known her to be in the vicinity of said tree with said snake in it and he was not alarmed, no warning... she just gave him said fruit and he just ate it. I do not think this fruit was a tangible fruit at all but an allegorical statement about a way of choices that was good to eat, meaning pleasurable indeed.
Sucks being a gentile in jewish religion
Dave, I guess we have to ask, first, what was the serpent, what was the Tree and what were Adam and Eve, really? How much is symbolic and metaphor?
We need to approach the search for wisdom with humility.
The event in the Garden cannot be taken literally. For one thing, God told Adam that he would surely die on the day he ate of the forbidden fruit. Did he and his mate literally, physically die on that day? Nope!
So, what really happened? Was the Garden even a physical place? Could it have been, instead, merely another name for "heaven?" Could it have been merely a spiritual "non-place" outside of space-time? For this would seem to be the realm where creation originates. Could the serpent have been "selfishness" (the sense of entitlement held by first Eve then Adam)? Later, Adam is both male and female and plural (Gen. 5:2). Please! Don't hold on too tightly to the literal, or you will miss the entire intent.
When Nicodemus asked Jesus about being reborn, he was confused by the literal, physical rebirth, when Jesus seemed to mean a spiritual rebirth. As Gen. 1:26 says, we were born in His image, so we are non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. God wants His children back, not the bodies they wear.
So, to answer your question: "What would the outcome be and how would it effect life for mankind today?"
There might be no need for Homo sapiens as hosts for God's sleeping children, for without the forbidden fruit (matrix of selfishness and separateness?), God's children would still be in heaven and wide awake, spiritually.
Thats interesting. I want to touch on the last statement about no need for homo sapiens. But where to begin....
God created adam from the ground and eve from adam. There's something interesting right there.. why was eve not made from the ground also? and what differences were caused by eve being made from adam instead of from ground? but i digress lol.
Since homo sapiens are flesh, flesh must be necessary to obtain some goal. My understanding is that God wanted adam or humankind to love Him. This need for love that God has is enhanced by his created beings that merely do His will, having no freedom to choose otherwise, they are servants of the obedient type, but mankind is different. We have the ability to choose and this choice makes us able to love. Love is always given freely, its a choice we make. We cannot love those who we do not esteem worthy of love. Anyway, flesh seems to have its needs and wants, is prone to enticements i suppose through chemical reactions and our ability to choose our actions that either feed sin or feed our better side. Since flesh give us this duality of ability that angels do not have we must come to the conclusion that flesh is a necessity, perhaps love is only resident in the chemicals and brain functions of homo sapiens, couple that with choice, we have a recipe for love. There certainly seems to be a lot we can learn through this avarice of flesh.
I like that you mentioned Nicodemus have you read my hub about him?
I would have to say and agree with some, we would still be in Eden. There would be no sin, no evil, and no illness. We would all be close to God and follow His ways. Our nature would be to be good.I also agree with the loving Father, he was and still is though we now can choose evil. Our flesh would not lead us into temptation.
Then the bible probably would have never gotten past chapter 1
I fear as many do, the suffering in the world came from the bite of that apple. Freedom of choice has led to some bad choices and Eden no longer exists. God still provides, even for those who suffer, with life everlasting. Our faith is what sees us through even in the bad times. God answers all prayers though not always in the way we want them to be answered.
Man was created in the image of God which means he has the ability to function like God. When God told Adam to name the animals and trees he basically called them what was written in God's own book of names for these animals and vegetation and all that was created he was confirming what God had already said of them.So you would ask how did Adam know all this. The answer is he was created to functioned like God so when he did that he proved that he was connected to the Spirit of God which gave him wisdom and knowledge of what to call things he has never seen or heard of before.
Now coming to the story of eating the forbidden fruit:what exactly did Eve do wrong? As most of us would like to think that she did not know what she was doing as the instruction was given to Adam but remember that Eve came out of Adam and the same Spirit which was breathed into Adam was breathed into her too so she might have been tricked by the serpent but it was not like she did not know she knew exactly what God said to them.
These two people had the Spirit of God in them, we don't hear a place were God asked Adam to teach Eve what God had told him, but we find Eve telling the serpent what God said to them. Which might mean the serpent or (satan who was speaking through the serpent) did not know what God had instructed Adam and Eve.
Eve was the one who told the serpent what God said if you read your bible well. The serpent came with a generalised question and Eve gave him the solution to his problem by telling him exactly what God said to them. This opened a door for the serpent to find way of getting them seperated from their God so he could have a way with them. As long as these two where obedient and where keeping the instructions of God and following them they were not at risk of being seperated from God, no eveil could touch them and the devil knew he had to find a doorway to use so he could also have access into the lives of God's creation. He found a doorway into the serpent as he was caaled (more cunning than any beast of the field that the Lord God had made)
So the truth here might not be clear to us, but just maybe the garden of Eden is in our minds and this is the place where the battles start and finish. This is where the wars are won and lost. God wants us to surrender our souls to him so we can do good and satan wants to control our souls so we can self destroy. Just maybe the eating the fruit was disobedience that would open a doorway that made Adam and Eve have difficulty connecting to God and fellowship with him daily. This is the problem we all suffer from today the ability to commune with God 24 hours a day and have a clear path of where we are going or what to do because there so many thoughts and ideas that are not coming from the creator of our lives and we end up with trial and error many mistakes and slow progress. May be this is what God was warning Adam and Eve so that they do not end in this place of confusion.
That is not how God wanted it to be it should have been smooth sailing and swift, Adam and Eve wer meant to learn and do as God directed but they chose their own way and created trouble for themselves.
But Jesus Christ corrected this for all of us and we have no excuse or reason to blame Adam and Eve we should be able to overcome because now we have the same Spirit Jesus Christ had dwelling in us so we are able to make better decisions now we know better and have a guide, counsellor and teacher to show us the right path of life. And yes it is a choice we have to make either to continue as we are or to surrender our will to God and let him direct our path.
If Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit maybe there would have been other pathways of learning in this life on earth, or maybe God knew all that would be and he wanted us to learn in this environment and learn to function like him even in these difficult and tough times maybe he wanted us to be stretched and learn to trust him more rather than on our own abilities.
Has anyone read Dr. Joye Pugh's book "Eden the Knowledge of Good and Evil 666? She not only goes into the story of Adam and Eve, but into Satan's agenda. Some of it may sound a little far-fetched but I found her research very thought provoking.
by Dave Mathews4 years ago
If Adam and Eve did not disobey God's one and only rule, command, about the fruit of that one tree, the tree of "Knowledge of good and evil", the way I see it, we would all still be living in Eden. We could...
by jerami4 years ago
I read that question earlier and have been thinking about it while trying to go to sleep .... Well? Here I am ??? I was wondering what life would be like if it hadn't been? Had we not received...
by haj33966 years ago
Wasn't the earth perfect once?
by sandra rinck7 years ago
So GOD tells Adam and Eve to eat from whatever tree they want to except the one in the middle cause it is the tree of good and bad...So then the Serpent comes along and convinces Eve that it is ok to eat it and that God...
by Greatest I am4 years ago
Is becoming like God evil?I would like to restrict giving God any other attribute except for knowing good and evil in this thread. Just for simplicity.I have two quotes I would like you to consider.“Behold, the man...
by mecheil6 years ago
Suppose this god is real (and you were this god), and his (or your) sovereignty was challenged by rebels, would you kill the rebels right then and there? Or would you rather let them live for a while to give them time...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.