If Adam and eve didn't have the knowledge of good and evil how did they know to obey God?
How did they know that they weren't just acting on desire? Desire being the voice of God...
A much more important question to ask is how many Christians eat apples?
It was probably a pomegranate anyway...
The fruit is never described as an apple. The reason we think of it as such, is because apple was the Anglo-Saxon word for fruit. Not a particular fruit, just fruit in general. As the centuries, passed though, and different fruits were given their own names, only what we now think of as an apple was referred to as such.
Very good, @Muldania.
And the fruit in the Garden was not a physical fruit, in any case.
The Garden was a spiritual place and everything in it spiritual things. The descriptions of Genesis 2 and 3 are metaphor for truth, because there are no words in our human languages for that truth.
Adam and Eve were told that they would die on the day they ate of the fruit, but they did not physically die. They died spiritually. They died to the light of spiritual truth and were thereafter unable to see with the spirit. They had to rely on physical instrumentalities.
The nature of the "Tree" was thus one of concept. The nature of this concept was described clearly in Genesis. The nakedness and guilt of Adam and Eve was one aspect, for in their shame, they also knew mortal innocence; but they had forgotten spiritual (paramita) innocence.
The name of the "Tree" also gives us a clue -- the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Here we also have a dichotomy -- good-evil. Thus the matrix of concepts of all dichotomies form the poison of this forbidden fruit ("fruit" meaning "product," as in "product of creation or work"). This matrix includes good-evil, right-wrong, compassion-indifference, generosity-selfishness, wisdom-stupidity, perpetrator-victim and many more.
One other biblical prototype may be appropriate, here -- that of "knowledge." "To know" is also a euphemism for "to lay with." Jesus talked of this when he said that we should live in the world, but not be "of" the world. In other words, we should not "lay with" or "wallow" in the world and be a part of it and its dichotomies.
These dichotomies form the flesh and bones of ego. Ego wants to be good, but only the selfish, mortal good that accompanies pride. Ego wants to be bad, for in such badness is the freedom to do all that selfishness desires.
Humility is the antidote to ego.
A Troubled Man ~
ATM > how many Christians eat apples? <
Who ever said anything about "apples"? I understand you're just delighting yourself with an opportunity to mock something you don't get and ridicule those who do get it, but your lame blurb demonstrates the failure of your ill-informed general approach; the point is that man chose a different course than the path God (who he knew) set before him, he elected to reject God rather than to trust and follow Him, and so he came to experience the knowledge of good AND of evil . . . he knew what it was to trust his Father and then he came to know what it was to reject and hide from his Father.
But you set aside the real and consequential ideas revealed to us in Scripture and prefer to pick-up an old folklore notion, prop it up as a silly point of faith for Christians, and fuss about 'apples'. Again, I recognize your actual interest here, but the same tact runs through your dismissal of other real and consequential ideas, so that you argue "In order to make a simple point to a couple of people, he must wipe out the entire earths population to do it" . . . you prop-up your own notions as 'Christian beliefs' and then rail against the foolishness of things that Christians don't even believe.
But, nothing like that matters, because argument, evidence, reason, etc, are all inconsequential to the narrow-minded . . . it's simply easier to pick sides, generalize, and then mock - if you're on the 'stupid' team then whatever it is that you actually say is stupid and if you're on the 'smart' team then whatever it is that you actually say is smart. So that, if the skeptic/agnostic/atheist suggests any manner of evidence that's a sound move no matter the validity or not of his actual evidence - while if the Christian suggests any manner of evidence just disregard it no matter the validity or not of his actual evidence . . . because the teams are already set, to the narrow-minded the 'smart' team must be smart because they're the 'smart' team and the 'stupid' team must be stupid because they're the stupid' team. Bigotry is always easier than truth . . . plus, that way you get to puff-up yourself by mocking those who see things differently.
Much of anti-Christian sentiment today is unmistakably similar (if you're old enough to recognize it) to 1960's racism . . . often the 'intellectual' elite skeptics of today look just like the sloppy toothless sheriff grinning as he eats popcorn at his trial thinking by virtue of his 'team' he is smarter than any Black man alive.
Oh no, I do understand that fairy tale. However, for grown adults to actual believe it is another mind boggling mystery.
Your scriptures were written by men, very, very ignorant men.
Never, I use only the beliefs of Christians written here, they are not my notions at all.
At least you're being honest about how believers operate.
That is false. I have acknowledged those who speak nonsense and those who don't, regardless of their beliefs.
Christians have never produced one iota of evidence to support their beliefs or their gods. Isn't it all a matter of faith?
Truth is in reality, not Christian beliefs, and it is those beliefs that are easy to propagate while the truth of reality requires rigor and hard work to understand.
That utterly ridiculous and hypocritical statement doesn't even deserve a response.
When you utter ridiculous comments like that, it's no wonder it gets laughed at in light of understanding it's all part and parcel to that which is your religion.
That's easy, He extincted all those dinosaurs so Adam and Eve would get the picture.
God sure does work in mysterious ways. But, I don't understand why he seems to be so extreme in his works. In order to make a simple point to a couple of people, he must wipe out the entire earths population to do it.
As a kid I thought Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs and the Flintstones were their relative. I did understand why Adam and Eve didn’t obey the T Rex, I thought everything was on his menu. Why worry over a little serpent offering a healthy apple.
Silly me, tricks are for kids
God was doing more than proving a point to a couple of people when he flooded the earth. And He doesn't see death the way we do.
Really? So, how many people were left over after the alleged flood occurred? Perhaps, a few more than a couple? And, God was not proving a point to them?
And, you know that how?
Yes.... and long, long before the Dinos.. apparently Willyopods were very active sexually within the acidic waters of Lake Mead!
That was along time earlier than Johnny Appleseed who was also said to have been quite active also...
And contrary to the play.. I'm sure his portrayal of the snake was meant to be Adam!
I guess I must have missed the 'point' completely - I much prefer Apricots!
They didn't. I think the whole point was that these were the first two beings God created that had an individual will of their own, apart from God. Everything else in existence, animate or inanimate, did exactly what God said all throughout chapter one. Adam and Eve were only given one rule. After the 'serpent' (or 'deceiver') explained to Eve what she would gain from eating it, she decided of her own free will to do so.
Good point actually. I've brought the same point up with believers in the story before and thus far haven't received a good answer. Adam and Eve are meant to be like God's children and they have no idea about right and wrong and yet rather than attempt to forgive them for their actions when they do sin God decides to curse them and kick them out. I've likened it to a child touching a hot stove even after being warned, instead of being concerned for the child's well-being God is furious and curses the child.
Story makes no sense literally which is why most Christians gave up on it long ago.
God was their creator. They would look to him for knowledge.
I have a kind of idea about that fruit...
Adam and Eve lived in a place of, essentially, perfection(let's just assume this for arguments' sake). Everything was good, great, excellent, etc...
Now, without experiencing both sides of the coin, you can't appreciate good things. If you had constantly lived in a state of happiness, you wouldn't understand it.
I think the fruit could have been something bitter... a catalyst to teach Adam and Eve that there are opposites. Just because they didn't *know* good, didn't mean they couldn't do it. They just didn't understand it.
With so many supposed 'experts' on the subject...
I am amazed at how few are actually prepared to promote the one thing that holds genuine credibility and really was the true core of the issue....
What did the Apple taste like!!!
Why does it matter? If you are eating an apple, are you not tasting it? What happened then does not matter, for it is not now and now is the only experience we truly have.
which i dont . i was looking up the name Lilith cus its my granddaughters name and wanted to know the names history . what i found was surprising in many ways .
P. S. mischeviousme i always appreciate your comments and value your ideas and consider your thoughts. thank you
The real question is why would you take the "story" of Adam and Eve literally and pose it as a hypothetical question as to the esoteric meaning of good and evil?
This American Life on NPR has a cool retake on the adam and eve story.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a … om-scratch
its act 3 listen and youll like. its cool. its fiction . i like it
hope posting the link was ok
@KylePayne, an interesting question, but it shows a misunderstanding.
First of all, the garden was a spiritual place (not physical). The Adam and Eve of the Garden were representative, not literal; they were all of us (and not the physical Homo sapiens shells we wear).
The "good and evil" of the "Tree of Knowledge of good and evil" were also representative of the entirety of the conceptual matrix which was the "fruit" (product of creation or work) of that conceptual "Tree."
The guilt or shame that Adam and Eve felt was also part of that matrix.
That matrix is the blood and bone of ego -- the heart of selfishness.
The "good" of these dichotomies is the dark and cold, physical reality shadows of the good of spirit and light. This mortal good is tainted with its opposite. No matter how good you become as ego, you will always have a spot of the bad within that good.
When one has mortal confidence, one can do great things through force of will. When one has confidence of the spirit (perfect, 100% confidence) found in faith, then all manner of miracles are possible. This is the state that God hopes we will find, but this takes humility -- not the arrogance of some "magicians" who proclaim to know "the secret."
Some Jewish scholars have called the Shabbat (Sabbath) the day of perfection. This is the day when we should turn our attention away from a dependence on physical instrumentalities (work) and rely on the power of God and of faith to educate us toward re-awakening as children of the Most High.
When we achieve this re-awakening, we will have achieved the perfection of spirit and be basking in the light of truth, no longer relying on physical light for our ability to see.
And I have seen without these physical eyes. I know a small inkling of what is possible. We need to join together and do it.
Wow--you've given me some concepts to ponder! I've thought of such things, but not quite in the way you've described. You are many levels beyond the surface. "Deep calls out to Deep." Thanks for piquing my interest and giving me some substance to consider as I drift off to sleep in communion with God (funny how when I'm just on the verge of sleep is when things seem most clear but then I fall asleep and most often the revelations received in the twilight hours seem to fade back into my subconscious as the light of day focuses my attention on the physical realm, once again. That darn alarm clocks always seems to steal away the "aha's" with which I awake! I'm rambling now--that means time to stop writing and go to sleep!)
I agree with your arrogance and joining together ideology...but what then of Noahs Ark, Parting of the sea, etc...soooo the story is all metaphorical and based on interpretation? Spirituality seems to be the way to go then, thus an earlier quote of mine that the deity is in all of us. And when you say "we" you mean everyone? Or just those that "choose" to be children of the most high? your cognitive complexity is appreciated
I have heard of the viewpoint you have chosen, and I have chosen to not accept it. I do not believe that shows misunderstanding on my part, rather understanding.
Adam and Eve were the first person with whom the Creator God had a converse.
They were not the first person being born.
Adam and Eve were born by Magic like Jesus was, then you have all the born again people, at lease in their own mind they call themselves born again.
Jesus was born of Mary; not of magic; you are wrong there; I don't agree with you.
Who was the Father? ,...... was it by magic?
The Holy Spirit. Do not mock Jesus Christ, His mother, or the immaculate conception.
Giving hard questions is often mocking, no way around it, because faith is more often the answer. How do you come to an understanding with answerS like, You gotta have Faith?
Jesus was son of Mary; and Mary did not have a husband named "Holy Spirit", I am sure.
Do you remember father of everybody born in this world?
Here's an interesting read on a possible origin of the Adam and Eve story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -Eden.html
Thank you for this link. I wasn't aware of Gobekli Tepe. That's fascinating and falls right in line with what I've been writing about.
I also read your hub on the ages of the people in early genesis. Great work on that. In it you mentioned the slow decrease in lifespans. This, I believe, is the result of the people from Adam's bloodline having children with early humans, homo sapiens. Just as it says in Genesis 6, humans are mortal. Adam's family was not. It says God's spirit would not contend with humans forever. I don't think this was a curse, He was just stating a fact.
As an alternative view of Eden and the fall it sounds very plausible if we take Adam and Eve not as individuals but as representatives of the large social grouping.
At one point the human race is a happy carefree group of hunter gatherers. Within a couple centuries, it's all gone wrong. They have developed agriculture which has enslaved them to toil and hard labour, and they've destroyed that paradisical environment, by choping down the forests, causing soil erosion and climate change. The land is an arid semi desert, the animals have gone, and the rivers dried up. Truly the very ground is cursed because of 'Adam'. Also, in an agricultural society, their bodies weakened through a poorer diet.
The people look back at the folklore memories of what once was and develop a creation fall story to try to account for it. "They must have committed a great sin to be cast out of paradise". According to the archeologists exploring the site, the nature of the carvings with flint tools demonstrates a culture with plenty of leisure time, and the evidence is that it predates agriculture. That agriculture came as a result of necessity to support the hundreds of people building the site. It was building this temple site that ultimately led to the paradise becoming a wasteland. Similarly the erection of the statues on Easter Island required the chopping down of the forests, which brought climate change and starvation, ending with the inhabitants dying out.
So was the tree of knowledge of good and evil a representation of religion? Perhaps God said the day that you create religion you will die. 'Eve' disagrees and thinks that religion will impart knowledge and wisdom by clearly differentiating good from evil. The social group agrees with Eve, their religion is developed, which leads to a temple, which leads to agricultural slavery and destruction of Eden, the land is cursed and 'Adam and Eve' die as God warned, because of poor nutrition. To this day we are all cursed by being wage slaves instead of carefree hunter gatherers. Pure speculation on my part here I know.
In time, the creation story is embellished, other ideas are incorporated, and before writing it down in Genesis, the story has already been changed to include additional elements to try to give man a lesson in God and mankind's nature.
I get what you're saying, but a couple of things make that hard for me to accept from a natural human progression standpoint. If that site is indeed the inspiration behind Eden, and I do agree it very well could be, we're talking about 8,000 to 10,000 BC. Early humans, who at the time show no other signs of technological capability anywhere near this level, were able to organize and carry out a construction job so massive that it literally wrecked the environment, which among other things included moving stones that would take 500 men to accomplish.
This is 3,000 years before the dawn of civilization and 5,000 years before writing. This would suggest a great level of organization and an unbroken chain of consistent verbal storytelling that span, what, 150 generations or more? It seems strange that with such a high level of craftsmanship, ingenuity, intelligence, community, etc... so early on that it would take so long to develop the mass agricultural practices that allowed civilization to begin.
The ancient Sumerian stories, which include a similar first man/woman story, explain in detail that their ancestors were taught civilization by numerous gods before the big flood. And not figments of their imagination. Physical gods who inhabited physical temples. By the time the Books of Moses were written down centuries later it was only one God, and it gives a much more geographically detailed account of the Adam and Eve story than the Sumerian equivalent. Not to mention the description of an ark that's very much sea-worthy. How did they manage that with no known written record other than the Sumerian/Akkadian accounts to draw from?
The more I read about various civilisations with different creation stories, the more I see that each one has some common themes within their folklore. What we have in the bible is only one version that we inherited from Israel. Yet the Church insists this is the only worthwhile account and everything happened literally as described. This stance ignores poetic and literal licence by the writers who at the end of the day were simply imparting their understanding of the account as passed on verbally or from the national conciousness.
The two most notable events that happen in Genesis before Babel are the creation of man and the flood. Various civilizations showing common themes throughout the world, the flood seems most prevalent, could also be the result of the people of Babel being dispersed throughout an already populated world. The flood had only happened a few generations before. They all would have been familiar. Some of the themes remained, but many of the stories changed throughout the generations.
So he got really mad when they raided his orchard. Apples don't make you smarter. Actually, they were supposed to remain as animals.
I believe many of you are over-analyzing the theory of Adam and Eve way too much. There are more important things we could analyze and discuss in order to hopefully bring about a change in attitude and or action. Like...the fact that too many people are surviving solely on Ramen Noodles and bread while others splash around in infinity pools and eat the offspring of fish. Just a thought
You don't think it's important to try to suss out one of the most divisive elements of humanity by applying modern world knowledge and understanding? What else could we talk about that could have more of a dramatic impact on 'attitude and or action'?
by sandra rinck8 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 Cindy Vine13 months ago
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth, who did their children marry?
by carolegalassi2 years ago
Did Adam and Eve love each other? Does the Bible mention it anywhere?"Bone of my bones" and "flesh of my flesh" and "they shall become one flesh" is this LOVE?
by topgunjager17 months ago
Why are there so many different races if we all came from adam and eve? Does it support evolution that we changed to different faces and colors and body types because we were exposed to different conditions that made...
by Castlepaloma5 years ago
Man started wearing clothes 170000 years agoAdam and Eve were naked 6014 years agoAnatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200000 years ago , most people can believe this, then how come most people are...
by Akita Daniel Omosivwe4 years ago
What would have happened to man if Eve did not commit that sin in the Bible?One thing that I have been thinking about is Gen. 2:25 and Gen. 3:5, concerning Adam & Eve. These first people created were not ashamed...
Copyright © 2018 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.