I posted something similar to this in the Religion Section in the past (some may remember it) looking for a secular approach to interpreting an allegory.

I have refined it a bit, and decided to post it here - where I think it should get the treatment that I had originally intended when I first posted it.

Looking at the Judeo-Christian Creation story in an allegorical sense, I disagree with the common Christian interpretation of it being the "Fall of Man" and "Original Sin".

This is what I interpret the intention of the story as...

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?

I have to disagree with the argument that they did what God fully expected them to do and what they were created for.
I whole-heartedly reject the Calvinist notion of human automatons.
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?
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 IS the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
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 and wisdom on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp self-determination.

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.
NIV Genesis 2:17 "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."
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.
NIV Genesis 3:2 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
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.
God accepts this as development and maturation of mankind - with each Patriarchal Covenant, God allows a bit more independence - the rules get a bit more lax (thanks, Liz).
With gained wisdom, comes greater independence.
Adam and Eve was just the beginning.

This, however, was not an act of disobedience.
It WAS what God expected -just as a parent expects his child to move out of the house and forge his own path one day.
People will point to the "punishment" handed down from God to Adam and Eve as evidence for it being a "sin".
First of all, sin presupposes the knowledge of sinning.
Without knowing Good from Evil (remember, they hadn't eaten the fruit yet) there was no sin committed.
(Note that not only "Original Sin" but also "Fall of Man" were Christian inventions. The Tanakh does not have section titles, like the Bible does.)

As for the punishment...

NIV Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Is this punishment or simply consequence of action?
God essentially gave a choice.
The two of you can live here in the perfect lush paradise of the Garden I created for you for eternity if you so choose.
You will have no worries, no difficulty, I will take care of you in every way.
Or...
You can reject this protection, and leave the garden.
Out there the land is dry desert.
Out there you do not have the Tree of Life, so you will taste death.
Out there life is difficult, and you will have to endure.
It is your choice; live like a pet in my terrarium, or open your eyes and go it alone.

Eve...
NIV Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This is often viewed as punishment because his words "greatly increase your pains in childbirth", but that only holds true when it is taken out of context.
Look at this verse...
NIV Genesis 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Before they were cast out of the Garden, they could not produce children at all.

Not only did Eve give mankind self-determination, but she gave mankind procreation.
Childbirth is painful, but is the pain not worth it?
Billions of people would say that it is.
Childbirth is a wonderful gift, and if it weren't for Eve tasting the "Forbidden Fruit" there would still only be two humans living as a pair of pets in God's perfect terrarium.
If it wasn't for Eve, the human race would not exist.
Eve gave us all the gift of life!

As I said earlier, if you look at all the patriarchal covenants made, God progressively grants humans more autonomy and ability to make his own decisions with each new promise.

So back to the question..
Why was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil placed in the Garden of Eden?
Why put it there if they were not supposed to eat from it?

Consider this...
God placed the Tree there so they could eat from it when they were ready to.
It was a "challenge" of sorts (for lack of a better word).
If they were not ready to push the limits and take the risk of dying, they would not eat from it.
If they were so adamant about eating the fruit, then they were ready to become self determinate, and go off to fend for themselves.
They were not, however, fully "mature" yet, and God could not let them fully cut him off.
If he allowed them to remain immortal, they would not need him at all, and they would be cut off from his guidance, wisdom and leadership.
When your child is ready to face the world on his or her own, they will go out into the world, despite all your warnings about the dangers and difficulty out there, because they will have the need to grasp the gauntlet of self-determination and become their own person.
If you are a good parent, you will let them build their own life, but not cut them off entirely - you will not deprive them of your guidance, wisdom and leadership, but you WILL allow them to make their own mistakes if they choose to reject your advice.
Continuing on the theme of the Covenants with God (each allowing for more freedom and self-reliance), eventually, when mankind is fully mature, it will no longer need its father.
Mankind, when it reaches maturity, will have transcended a need for father, therefore will have transcended a need for God.

What do you think?

Uh, Rave, God specifically instructed them to not touch that fruit.

Uh, Rave, God specifically instructed them to not touch that fruit.

I know.
I quoted his words.
Did you miss that?

I don't get your point.
Please elaborate.

They new it was wrong to violate God's instruction, therefore, they were not ignorant of right and wrong.

They new it was wrong to violate God's instruction, therefore, they were not ignorant of right and wrong.
Answer me this, then...

How could they have known what was "right or wrong" if they hadn't yet eaten the fruit of "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"?

What was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil if it was not what imbued them with an understanding of morality (right and wrong)?

I addressed that as well.
Did you read the whole post?

Or... there is just no rational explanation and the story is more like a dynamic dance with no clear plan or logic, i.e., it is irrational.

Just an alternative and not necessarily my view, I don't spend much time thinking about christianity, so I have no clear opinion in this,

Or... there is just no rational explanation and the story is more like a dynamic dance with no clear plan or logic, i.e., it is irrational.

Just an alternative and not necessarily my view, I don't spend much time thinking about christianity, so I have no clear opinion in this,

See, I can't buy that at all because, like I said...
Regardless of whether or not it is "true" or historically accurate, the Bible was written for a purpose.
It had a point.

The Hebrews wrote the Tanakh for a reason.
It contained their history, laws, philosophy and religion.
It was a guide to life and living.

What I am looking for is what this story could have possibly meant, because I don't think the Christians got the interpretation of the Jewish story right.

As I said in anothr thread, I have spoken with a few Rabbis and Rabinnical students about my interpretation, and they agree with me.
I have also been told that interpretations in the Talmud support what I have said (though I haven't read them myself, so I can't say for certain).

If you will, try reading it as if it is a piece of literature (without the chapter headings that were not in the Tanakh) and think about how you would interpret that piece of creative writing.

I agree that your explanation makes a lot more sense, can't really argue with it.
Thanks for your input!

The "knowledge of good and evil" is apparently more than disobeying God, as they disobeyed God first.

The "knowledge of good and evil" is apparently more than disobeying God, as they disobeyed God first.

But God says The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil, after he ate from the Tree.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that Adam and Eve did not know good from evil before eating from the tree.

So, yes, they did disobey God, but at the time they disobeyed God, they did not know it was wrong to do so.

Ok, so they thought disobeying God would bear no consequences, how's that?

Ok, so they thought disobeying God would bear no consequences, how's that?

Because they did not know "Good" from "Evil".
They had no concept of "Right" and "Wrong".
They had no understanding of "Morality".

Ok, so they thought disobeying God would bear no consequences, how's that?

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

Unless Adam and Eve weren't paying attention to God when he said this, I'm pretty sure they knew the consequences...death. Yet, hmmm. They did it anyway.

Unless Adam and Eve weren't paying attention to God when he said this, I'm pretty sure they knew the consequences...death. Yet, hmmm. They did it anyway.

Sorry.
You are correct.
They knew there would be consequences.
They did not, however, know they were doing something "wrong".

I guess they didn't know what to die was, and of course, they didn't right away, but the germ of sin entered the world, and all began to slowly die beginning at that point.

the germ of sin entered the world, and all began to slowly die beginning at that point.

Is it a sin, if they did not know they were sinning?
That's the question I am asking.
That's what this all hinges on, I suppose.

Unless Adam and Eve weren't paying attention to God when he said this, I'm pretty sure they knew the consequences...death. Yet, hmmm. They did it anyway.
but even then they couldn't of known what death, was/meant as they had never experience it. they wouldn't have known if death was bad or good, would they.
not having any knowledge of good or bad. gods words would have meant nothing, and all the threats in the universe would have gone on deaf ears.

but even then they couldn't of known what death, was/meant as they had never experience it. they wouldn't have known if death was bad or good, would they.
not having any knowledge of good or bad. gods words would have meant nothing, and all the threats in the universe would have gone on deaf ears.

See, I'm not so sure about that.
It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge, after all. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which is "Right and Wrong", not necessarily "pleasant and unpleasant").
They obviously had knowledge, because God spoke with them, Adam named the animals etc.
I don't think there is any reason to assume they did not understand what death was.
God DID tell them that death was a consequence, and I would have to assume that if they did not know what death was, he would have explained it to them.

When do you think Adam and Eve lived?

When do you think Adam and Eve lived?

*************
M*W: Never. They were personifications of the Constellations Bootes (Adam), the herdsman; and Virgo (Eve), the virgin; and Serpens (Serpent), or the wise one. These myths were created by ancient nomads wandering at night.

There are a number of explanatory websites on these constellations, and you will see how they closely resemble what was written in Genesis.

When do you think Adam and Eve lived?

I told you, I will not play your Platonic games.
Please explain how that question relates to this thread, and belongs in this forum at all, as opposed to the religion forum.
As I said, I am treating this as a secular exploration and interpretation of an allegory.
In that context, please explain the relevance of that question.
As I have said several times today, please elaborate.

One Raven,

I always enjoy reading your posts.

One Raven,

I always enjoy reading your posts.

Thank you.
That's really nice to hear (well, read). :)

People, don't stop engaging the topic now. Continue...

the one lesson all people (secular or religious) can take away from the story is humility.

See, I'm not so sure about that.
It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge, after all. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which is "Right and Wrong", not necessarily "pleasant and unpleasant").
They obviously had knowledge, because God spoke with them, Adam named the animals etc.
I don't think there is any reason to assume they did not understand what death was.
God DID tell them that death was a consequence, and I would have to assume that if they did not know what death was, he would have explained it to them.then they would have had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the apple, so why the tree why the temptation, why the serpent. Good and bad are in every aspect of the humanity, we class death as bad/evil/not good, because of this knowledge of bad we can define whats good, without knowledge of either we are but amoeba's, therefore for adam and eve to understand what death is they must have had knowledge of bad and good, unpleasant and pleasant. else you must assume as the xians do, that adam and eve knew they where doing wrong.
but they could not have known.

What do you think?

I think it's a fair theory. Let me toss out a potentially overlapping idea but also potentially contradictory idea. (not a Christian so I am not defending traditional analyses).

God wanted them to base decisions on relationship and trust rather than rules. Once they ate of the fruit it symbolically (via the act) moved them from a relationbased dynamic and interpersonal system to a moral based one. It was a false limit, God lied (they were not killed, though some say there they became mortal). But he was hoping that relationship could be based on a kind of mutual trust rather than a set of rules. They messed up and shifted God into a more rule-making role for all behavior. Though he told them not to eat it, it was a protective not a moral 'must'.

(of course the stories that have become myths have tended to serve those in power in various societies, here serving older men rather well.)

Good and bad are in every aspect of the humanity, we class death as bad/evil/not good, because of this knowledge of bad we can define whats good, without knowledge of either we are but amoeba's, therefore for adam and eve to understand what death is they must have had knowledge of bad and good, unpleasant and pleasant.

I see two problems with this.
First, there is the mixing of terms.
Evil and unpleasant/bad are not necessarily synonyms.
Evil assumes malice.
Morality refers to malicious and benevolent - not pleasant and unpleasant.
Stubbing your toe is certainly unpleasant, however, unless someone purposely places a rock in your path, there is nothing evil about it.

Stemming directly from that, you then have the problem of death equating to evil.
Death is not evil.

I think it's a fair theory. Let me toss out a potentially overlapping idea but also potentially contradictory idea. (not a Christian so I am not defending traditional analyses).
Toss away.

God wanted them to base decisions on relationship and trust rather than rules.
That seems pretty congruent with the idea.
An interesting perspective.

Once they ate of the fruit it symbolically (via the act) moved them from a relationbased dynamic and interpersonal system to a moral based one.
Right...

It was a false limit, God lied (they were not killed, though some say there they became mortal).
Ahhh...
God did not lie.
I hear this a lot, and I used to think so myself, the story, however, is very clear on the subject.
He tells them:
NIV Genesis 2:17 "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."
And when they eat of it, they are removed from the Garden, which has the Tree of Life.
People say they became mortal, because that's exactly what the story says:
NIV Genesis 3:2 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
And God did not lie, because he said they would surely die, whcih they eventually did - but would not have if they did not eat.

But he was hoping that relationship could be based on a kind of mutual trust rather than a set of rules. They messed up and shifted God into a more rule-making role for all behavior. Though he told them not to eat it, it was a protective not a moral 'must'.
I agree that it was a protective statement, but I disagree that they messed up.
They grew up.
They came of age.
Children are trusting, naive, don't know right from wrong, have no sexual desires or shame about their bodies, and do not know they are mortal.
They depend on their parents to protect and teach them.
Eventually, they become individuals and break away from the protective bubble that is mama's arms and face the world on their own.

(of course the stories that have become myths have tended to serve those in power in various societies, here serving older men rather well.)
I agree to a certain extent, but I don't see how that applies to this story at all.

The Old Testament tells us that Adam (first man) was designed to be a servant. His function was to till the soil and to care for the lush gardens and crops owned by his “God.” As long as Adam and Eve accepted their servant status and obeyed their ever-present masters, all of their physical needs would be met and they would be permitted to remain in their “paradise” indefinitely. There was, however, one unpardonable sin that they must never commit. They must never attempt to seek certain types of knowledge. Those forbidden forms of knowledge are symbolized in the story as two trees: the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” and the “tree of life.” The first “tree” symbolizes an understanding of ethics and justice. The second “tree” symbolizes the knowledge of how to regain and retain one’s spiritual identity and immortality.


Adam and Eve obeyed the commandments of their masters and lived in material bliss until another party entered the scene. The intervening party was symbolized in the story as a snake. The serpent convinced Eve to partake of the “fruit” * from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Eve followed the serpent’s suggestion, as did Adam. “God” (i.e., Custodial leadership) became immediately alarmed:

And the Lord’ God said. Look, the man has become as one of us, knowing good from evil: and now, what if he puts forth his hand, and takes also of the tree of life, and eats, and lives forever?
GENESIS 3:22

This fruit is usually portrayed as an apple, but that is the invention of later artists. The Bible itself does not mention a specific fruit because the “fruit” was only a symbol to represent knowledge.

Vega,

How can an act be a sin, if the perpetrator is unaware of morality, therefore unaware it is wrong?

Vega,

How can an act be a sin, if the perpetrator is unaware of morality, therefore unaware it is wrong?

Perhaps you should ask the one who staged the entire act

Perhaps you should ask the one who staged the entire act

The person who wrote the book has been dead for at least 2500 years and the story predates that bu ay least 500 years, so I don't see how that's possible.

So why don't you give me your opinon, instead.

Also, please address one of my first questions in the post...

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?

Also, please address one of my first questions in the post...

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?

There wasn't any real tree's at all but they were merely representations of "knowledge" and "life"
The so called "god" didn't expect humans to access the knowledge tree after his strict instructions. The mighty god was unaware that the humans were been manipulated by the serpert!

I was just reading through my opening post again, and as I read this...

Is this punishment or simply consequence of action?
God essentially gave a choice.
The two of you can live here in the perfect lush paradise of the Garden I created for you for eternity if you so choose.
You will have no worries, no difficulty, I will take care of you in every way.
Or...
You can reject this protection, and leave the garden.
Out there the land is dry desert.
Out there you do not have the Tree of Life, so you will taste death.
Out there life is difficult, and you will have to endure.
It is your choice; live like a pet in my terrarium, or open your eyes and go it alone.


...a notion came to mind.
The Torah is the section of the Tanakh that is supposed to be a history of the Jews.
The creation story closely parallels and is likely based on the Sumerian Creation story.
The Sumerian civilization was one of the first in the world (as far as we know) - certainly one of the first on the African continent.
As far as anyone can tell, the first "man" came out of Ethiopia.
When did man become man?
When he could tell stories.
All primates live along Riparian habitats.

Bear with me, I promise I am getting somewhere...

Man's first environment would have been along a river in Ethiopia surrounded by dry land barren of any lush crops...

It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

Ethiopia is largely a desert climate, except for along the rivers - like say the convergence of four rivers...

NIV Genesis 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

This very well could have been a story of moment of man's migration from the "safe" land along the river (possibly the point of convergence of the modern day Blue Nile, White Nile and Nile) and trek out to the unknown desert to seek his "destiny" and eventually settle Sumer.

Am I making sense at all?

I've often thought that the Torah resembles the life of man (both as an individual and as a collective) but I could never figure out which way it was meant to be taken.

Perhaps man is (I risk being booted to Pseudoscience for this word, but I can't think of a better analogy) fractal in that the development of a man is on parallel with the development of mankind, and that is the point.
As man grasps the gauntlet of self-determination (upon gaining wisdom and experience) he needs less and less guidance from a "superior" figure (God - the father) and can make decisions on his own.

600 BCE...

Around 600 BCE there was an awakening of man during which mankind started to collectively accept the notion of self determination, and reject the idea of being puppets to the "Gods" of nature.
Zarathustra (627-585 BCE) promulgated the Dualism of Good and Evil,
Lao-Tzu (604-531 BCE) wrote the Tao de Ching,
Confucius (580?-479 BCE) “flaunted his agnosticism”,
Buddha (565-483 BCE) taught a “godless wisdom”,
Xenophanes (550 BCE) criticized Greek polytheism,
Pythagoras (550 BCE) taught sacred geometry and mathematically based science,
Isaiah (550 BCE) taught “the first true monotheism in history”,
Theagenes (525 BCE) “rationalized Homer”, and
Hecataeus (500 BCE) “mocked the Greek myths”.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, “The prophets were first and foremost teachers of religion, not of ethics. Their supreme concern was the will of God, rather than the rule of righteousness.” However, in the 6th century, B.C.E. Jeremiah and Ezekiel began to emphasize “individual responsibility and sought to restore to the people a sense of personal relationship with God, which they had lost under the impact of pagan influence.” “This was a time of general national disintegration, when religious and social organizations were rapidly breaking up.”

It only progresses from there...
Thucydides (400), Trial of Socrates (399), Plato’s Academy (387), Aristotle (335), Indian Artha-sastra (politically rationalistic), Zhuangzi (mystical idealism), Shang Yang (legalism), Euclid (geometry)...

In Chinese History, 1000 B.C.E. marks the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty, which emphasized very strongly the Emperor’s “mandate of heaven” and “obedience to Gods”. But beginning in 772 B.C.E. in Southern China (and extending until 481 B.C.E.), the so-called “Springs and Autumns Period” began. This consisted of eight lesser periods, when life and limb were cheap, barbaric, and toward the end, “philosophy became more important than war.” This is when Lao Tzu and Confucius had arrived on the scene.

The list goes on and on.

At around 600 BCE mankind had an awakening - people started to preach personal repsonsibility and and start taking an active role in determining their own fate.

OK I am rambling out of control now.
I feel like I am on to something, but there is someting that is keeping it from all falling into place.
I need to step away from it for a bit and let it ferment.

There wasn't any real tree's at all but they were merely representations of "knowledge" and "life"
I did say that I was looking at this as an allegory.

The so called "god" didn't expect humans to access the knowledge tree after his strict instructions. The mighty god was unaware that the humans were been manipulated by the serpert!
Then why was the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil there?
Why did God create it, if he did not want them to eat of it?

Evil and unpleasant/bad are not necessarily synonyms. Evil assumes malice.

*************
M*W: I just want to bring up a point about the ancient understanding of "evil." In the context of what is written in the bible, "evil" is represented by "darkness," specifically, the "darkness of night." God (the sun) was with mankind during the light of day, but as sunset came, god had abandoned mankind and darkness prevailed. Ancient man thought darkness was "evil" in that god had "died" for the night, and that is when Lucifer was thought to prevail. (Lucifer being a star who led rebellions of other stars at night). My guess is ancient man looked up and saw comets and meteors in the night sky. Interestingly, the ancient word for the "moon" is "Sin," but I forget the origin just now. Therefore, whatever the words meant then have evolved into what people (christians) believe sin/evil is now, when all it really means is the death of god or "darkness."

Stemming directly from that, you then have the problem of death equating to evil. Death is not evil.

*************
M*W: As I said, "death" as in the "death of the sun" was equated to "evil." As you said, Death is not "evil."

Oh, and when the sun "died" and went "under the Earth," it was believed to go to a place of "darkness" and "evil." When the sun/god was not visible during the night, the "Prince of Darkness" ruled the world.

How innocent the myths were then.

this conversation is extremely off-topic.

this conversation is extremely off-topic.

Isn't stating that it is off-topic, off-topic in itself? :D

Let's get it back on topic...
What did you think of what I had to say?

I see two problems with this.
First, there is the mixing of terms.
Evil and unpleasant/bad are not necessarily synonyms.
Evil assumes malice.
Morality refers to malicious and benevolent - not pleasant and unpleasant.
Stubbing your toe is certainly unpleasant, however, unless someone purposely places a rock in your path, there is nothing evil about it.

Stemming directly from that, you then have the problem of death equating to evil.
Death is not evil.
bad, unpleasant, wrong, are Synonyms of evil. in every dictionary/thesaurus i've come across, it appears to me you are either playing at semantics or being facetious.

It seems to me that you are the one creating semantics here.
Is a bad workmanship of a guitar evil?
Is a wrong answer to a mathematical question evil?
Is headache evil?

bad, unpleasant, wrong, are Synonyms of evil. in every dictionary/thesaurus i've come across, it appears to me you are either playing at semantics or being facetious.

I'm neither being facetious nor playing at semantics at all.
Answer me this...

Stubbing your toe is unpleasant, is it not?
How is it, or the bed you stubbed yor toe on, evil?
They are simply not the same thing.

I'm neither being facetious nor playing at semantics at all.
Answer me this...

Stubbing your toe is unpleasant, is it not?
How is it, or the bed you stubbed yor toe on, evil?
They are simply not the same thing.so if there not similar then from your reasoning we can conclude that, adam and eve had fore-knowledge of bad, wrong, unpleasant, etc...., but absolutely no knowledge of good, right, pleasant etc... as they would not know anything of good until that ate from the tree, of good and evil.
so their prefall existence,
that's so often been stated as one of perfection was nothing but nasty bad stuff.

when adam and eve learnt of evil they learnt of the total meaning of the word including all it's Synonyms, you cant take one part of the meaning away just so it suits your arguement, it's just make's a mockery of the whole thing, as I have done above with the word good.

Don't know about you, but I curse that bed every time I stub my toe. It is evil.

one_raven,

Cool thread. I look forward to your conclusion.

geeser,
I will get back to you.
I am doing some research that I hope will clarify things a bit.

In the mean time, please explain this reasoning...
so if there not similar then from your reasoning we can conclude that, adam and eve had fore-knowledge of bad, wrong, unpleasant, etc...., but absolutely no knowledge of good, right, pleasant etc...
...because I have no clue how that could possibly follow from what I said.

Going further...
If a child does not know the difference between right and wrong, does he still know that it hurts when he falls down and feels nice when he gets comforted by his mother?

Does he have to understand morality to know something is pleasurable or not?

The two are very different things.
Just because they are synonyms, in certain contexts, in the English language, does not mean the terms are interchangable.

You never answered my question...
When you stub your toe on the bed, that is unpleasent, is it not?
What does that have to do with evil at all?

It wasn't the Tree of the Knowledge of Pleasent and Unpleasent, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is an obvious metaphor for personal morality.

But let me finish my research, and I will get back to you.


Don't know about you, but I curse that bed every time I stub my toe. It is evil.
:roflmao:

one_raven,

Cool thread. I look forward to your conclusion.

Thanks.
So do I.
I have no clue where it will take me, but I can't help thinking about this old thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1063936#post1063936).
I'm not sure why, though...

It wasn't the Tree of the Knowledge of Pleasent and Unpleasent, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is an obvious metaphor for personal morality.

I am not certain I agree, but I am enjoying the read.

I am not certain I agree, but I am enjoying the read.

What is your opinion on the matter?

It wasn't the Tree of the Knowledge of Pleasent and Unpleasent, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is an obvious metaphor for personal morality.

I would need read Genesis once again. "Their eyes were opened..." You are on to something here... Possibly "death," too, in that context might be considered a metaphor.

The Biblical tale of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is based on actual events which happened nearly 200,000 years ago.

A religious belief in One God has dominated the thinking of western society for more than a thousand years, leading to considerable difficulties with the concept of flesh-and-blood ‘gods’. However, such an idea did not present any problems to the world’s first known civilisation — the Sumerians — who lived alongside these divine rulers and depicted them as human-like beings.

The Sumerian scribes and their Akkadian successors inscribed clay tablets with a wealth of information about the gods. One such text, commonly known by the name of its hero, Atra-Hasis, describes the background to the creation of man, when the gods themselves were involved in the painstaking extraction of minerals from Earth.

The Biblical Garden of Eden is not a mythological place but a real location. In order to understand what happened there, it is necessary to appreciate that the word Eden is derived from the Sumerian term E.DIN. Whilst the first syllable ‘E’ meant ‘Home’, the second syllable was an abbreviation of DIN.GIR, commonly translated as ‘the gods’. Eden or E.DIN was therefore the ‘Abode of the Gods’.

Ancient texts describe more than one abode of the gods, with the Earth being divided geographically between two rival groups, headed by the brothers Enlil and Enki respectively. Whilst the Enkiites inhabited the African continent, the Enlilites occupied Asia and particularly the fertile lands of Mesopotamia. We are thus dealing with both a western Eden and an eastern Eden.

Adam and Eve’s embarrassment at being naked, along with Biblical references to the acquisition of ‘knowledge’, clearly suggest that they were the first human pair to become sexually aware. The Old Testament suggests that this change was caused by the consumption of a ‘fruit’. This is a significant detail because, according to the scenario outlined so far, man was created by the gods as a hybrid creature, and hybrids are nearly always born sterile. The tale of sexual knowledge being granted in the Garden of Eden therefore carries a distinct ring of truth.

Why did it suddenly become necessary for him to expel them and safeguard the Tree of Life with a ‘flaming sword’? The answer is amazingly simple. Originally mankind was designed as a slave workforce which could be easily controlled, and his sterility was an essential control mechanism. However, with the granting of sexual knowledge to Adam and Eve, man acquired the means to independent reproduction. The longevity offered by the Tree of Life thus changed from an asset to a liability, creating a serious risk of an out-of-control population explosion.

The texts in the bible didn't materialize from thin air, they all have their origins and if you do your research correctly you would find the sources to these events!

Adam and Eve’s embarrassment at being naked, along with Biblical references to the acquisition of ‘knowledge’, clearly suggest that they were the first human pair to become sexually aware.
Oh come on, that's bullshit, even monkeys are sexually aware in their orgies!

p.s. Imo, Adam and Eve legend has no factual basis whatsoever, it's a myth with all the attributes of a myth.
The ancient astronaut hypothesis by Van Daniken et.al. is a miserable attempt at explaining poetry as prose.

geeser,
In the mean time, please explain this reasoning...

...because I have no clue how that could possibly follow from what I said.if it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Benevolent and Evil, I could understand your arguement.
because Benevolent and Pleasant/Good are not necessarily synonyms.
Benevolent assumes Compassion.
it was the tree of Good and Evil, so if Evil is not the same as Bad. and A&E could not have known Evil before they ate, they therefore could not have known Good also.Going further...
If a child does not know the difference between right and wrong, does he still know that it hurts when he falls down and feels nice when he gets comforted by his mother?
Does he have to understand morality to know something is pleasurable or not? The two are very different things.
Just because they are synonyms, in certain contexts, in the English language, does not mean the terms are interchangable. however when your talking about something as important to the xian as this, you have to use the whole meaning else it becomes farcical.
for instance, Plato, believed that evil was a deficiency of judgment resulting in ignorance.
Do many of us not have this problem in regards to food? We know we should eat less but we choose to eat more because it feels good. This is an evil in respect to our own bodies, in so much as overeating can kill you and create a host of other medical problems. What is smoking but a short term pleasant, with long term unpleasent/evil results?
The problem with these type of definitions are that they come with a lot of baggage. If you try to tell someone that there choices might be “evil”, they look at you as if you are telling them that they might be red with horns. They can’t seem to get beyond the notion of evil as something allied with the murderers and not necessarily really evil. evil is simply the absence of something good.
so in this case you do have to use the whole meaning.You never answered my question...
When you stub your toe on the bed, that is unpleasent, is it not?
What does that have to do with evil at all?nothing, but we must refer to the whole meaning.
It wasn't the Tree of the Knowledge of Pleasent and Unpleasent, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is an obvious metaphor for personal morality.and it wasn't the Tree of the Knowledge of Benevolent and Evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

I think I know where Raven is going with this. What of the serpent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serpent) in the Garden who persuaded Eve to eat from the tree? What would be the metaphor for such a creature? The Devil on her shoulder...possibly?

[QUOTE=Bowser;1363723 What would be the metaphor for such a creature? The Devil on her shoulder...possibly?[/QUOTE]

*************
M*W: The myth of A&E in the GoE was created by ancient nomads looking up at the night sky and creating stories about the star formations in the constellations of Bootes, Virgo and Serpens.

The metaphor of the serpent (wisdom) and Eve (the female) I have always thought to be feminine spirituality (woman's intuition).

Raven,
Maybe you are working this concept: Spiritual Death (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/spiritualdeath.htm)

*************
M*W: The myth of A&E in the GoE was created by ancient nomads looking up at the night sky and creating stories about the star formations in the constellations of Bootes, Virgo and Serpens.

The metaphor of the serpent (wisdom) and Eve (the female) I have always thought to be feminine spirituality (woman's intuition).

"Tilling the soil" and "The Garden..." They were not nomads.

"Tilling the soil" and "The Garden..." They were not nomads.

*************
M*W: Please re-read my post. I did not claim that Adam and Eve were nomads, what I said was ancient nomads created the myths of A&E and the GoE. The zodiac (12 constellations) represented the GoE.

I think I know where Raven is going with this.
I'm glad ONE of us does, because I don't know where I'm going.
Maybe you can tell me. :D

What of the serpent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serpent) in the Garden who persuaded Eve to eat from the tree? What would be the metaphor for such a creature? The Devil on her shoulder...possibly?
I was wondering about that too.
It wouldn't be the "Devil", as what they did was not wrong...

If this was an act of grasping self determination, the what would have convinced her to do so?
What would have convinced the first men to leave their trees and safe river to explore the desert?
What drives man to constantly push, strive, learn and explore?

I don't know.
What do you think?

MW,

I just don't see a similarity between the two forms of people's. The story of Adam and Eve suggests evidence of an agrarian birth--if I am to look at it as originating from oral accounts,

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=agrarian

Nomadic life does not figure into the story. My stretch of such would be to suggest a reason for a nomadic lifestyle--banned from the garden.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nomads

As Raven said, how can we be certain of such things?

If this was an act of grasping self determination, the what would have convinced her to do so?
What would have convinced the first men to leave their trees and safe river to explore the desert?
What drives man to constantly push, strive, learn and explore?

I don't know.
What do you think?


I don't believe the story is a lesson in that sense, but keep thinking on it. I will keep reading. I am expecting something sensational though. :D

MW,

I just don't see a similarity between the two forms of people's. The story of Adam and Eve, if I am to look at it as originating from oral accounts, suggest evidence of an agrarian birth.

Nomadic life does not figure into the story. My stretch of such would be to suggest a reason for a nomadic lifestyle--banned from the garden.

I really hadn't thought about that.
Would the development of mankind have gone from arboreal to exploring the boundaries to nomadic to agrarian to city building?
Or would they have been an agrarian people in their habitat before they decided to venture into the unknown?

If man developed in a riparian zone (which he likely did) would population growth causing the lack of food force them to migrate through the desert and seek new pastures, or would it cause him to learn about cultivating the plants in the area?
Or, was there never a lack of food to begin with, and did they have time to simply foster and nurture the growth of the plants that they preferred to eat, and that stability give them the courage and strength to explore and start venturing in the unknown, knowing there was a stable home to return to?
Is it not human nature to explore and learn?

So why did they leave the river?
Was it necessity or curiosity?

So why did they leave the river?
Was it necessity or curiosity?

I honestly do not read that much into the story. Are we still floating allegories or are we now searching the history of human migration?

Are we still floating allegories or are we now searching the history of human migration?

Yes.

The Torah is supposed to be a history of teh Hebrew people.
Obvioulsy it is rife with allegory and metaphor...
I suppose I am looking for that line where the two converge.

my interest in this thread is sinking. Drop me a pm when you resolve the question. Thanks for the ride.

my interest in this thread is sinking. Drop me a pm when you resolve the question.
So is mine, actually, so you may never get that PM. :)

Thanks for the ride.
Likewise.

MW,

I just don't see a similarity between the two forms of people's. The story of Adam and Eve suggests evidence of an agrarian birth--if I am to look at it as originating from oral accounts,

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=agrarian

Nomadic life does not figure into the story. My stretch of such would be to suggest a reason for a nomadic lifestyle--banned from the garden.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nomads

As Raven said, how can we be certain of such things?

*************
M*W: I never suggested that A&E were nomads, nor did I suggest they were agrarians. I'm looking at this from a mythological viewpoint. A&E didn't really exist. Their stories were created by nomads who wandered under the night skies. However, nomads and agrarians could have existed at the same time likely in differing places. The desert wasn't a fruitful place for agrarians. One does not preclude the other.

Looking at A&E from an astro-theological standpoint, the zodiac was the GoE with all the creatures Adam named (the signs of the zodiac). Technically, from this perspective, the creatures (constellations) of the zodiac, including A&E, could be viewed from the night skies as 'wandering (nomads) in the wilderness (heavens and beyond).'

I can't see any "success" in seclurizing it.

How can A & E be interpreted literally? there is no sense in trying to do that.
This story is FULL of symbolism, that can be interpreted in many ways.

For me, the Garden of Eden is a place in the current reality, the place that Jesus reffered to when spoke to Pilatus "My kingdom is not of this realm".
And we can obviously get there, if we stop eating the prohibited fruit.

The serpent I believe is no more than the symbolic representation of the Ego.
And the "prohibited fruit" is just letting oneself go astray because of our Ego.

It is very similar with Oriental concept "Kundalini Energy", often reffered to as the "caduceus" image, wich is my current avatar img.

But thats just me you know.

This, however, was not an act of disobedience.
It WAS what God expected -just as a parent expects his child to move out of the house and forge his own path one day.
People will point to the "punishment" handed down from God to Adam and Eve as evidence for it being a "sin".
First of all, sin presupposes the knowledge of sinning.
Without knowing Good from Evil (remember, they hadn't eaten the fruit yet) there was no sin committed.
(Note that not only "Original Sin" but also "Fall of Man" were Christian inventions. The Tanakh does not have section titles, like the Bible does.)Actually, it was an act of disobediance, since Eve did have the intelligence to tell to the snake that she was not allowed to eat from the fruit.

It was also the original sin, since it brought sin to the world, cause as you say, if they don't know it was a sin, they shouldn't be blamed for it, so until they ate from the tree of knowledge there was no sin (in mans eyes), however when they ate it they brought upon them sin and death, cause they couldn't avoid the punishment any more.

Of course this has similiarities with upbringing, as this was the path that we had chosen. You could say that the upbringing we all experiance is like a synonym for the story in the Bible, and many stories in the Bible has similiar consequences in our lives, where stories in the Bible seems to unfold before our eyes.

i think the explanation for the story is even if you are not sure what is good for you,god is.

Sorry, Pandaemoni's post deleted.

People, please keep the posts within CR guidelines. No religious discourse of what God should have done, why wasn't his action logical, etc.

i think the explanation for the story is even if you are not sure what is good for you,god is.

Yes yes, you´re right, the big question, is how do we know what is good or bad in the eyes of God?
Now people don´t believe in the Bible or any other religious text. Only science.

All I know is society has worked hard to create an ego in me, and that cannot possibly be God´s will, God´s will is an inner voice, that we cannot hear most of the times because of the ego.

Vega,

How can an act be a sin, if the perpetrator is unaware of morality, therefore unaware it is wrong?

You may have answered this question elsewhere in the post, but in any case:

If a mentally handicapped person with no understanding of right and wrong kills someone, isn't it still a sin, wrong, and punishable?

Adam and Eve knew they were disobeying God, but they had no idea that disobedience was "wrong". Even so, it was still a sin, whether they were aware of it or not. God was aware it was a sin. Isn't he the decider of what is a sin and what isn't?

I don't think "right and wrong," "good and bad" and "good and evil" are the same things.

If your parents tell you to put your comic books away and go to bed, but you curl up under the covers with those comics and a flashlight, you are doing something "wrong" but you are not doing anything "evil." It's not even a little bit evil in opinion, though it might well be "bad." (I'll leave aside the question of whether something can be "evil" and not be "wrong", as that's a harder question, but things can be "wrong" without the taint of being "evil." I would argue that gaining knowledge of the difference between good and evil is not itself an evil act, though.)

Taking the story literally, I think it's possible that Adam and Eve could have known right from wrong without necessarily understanding the finer distinction between good and evil.

That said, if one looks at the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory, then the real truth is that there was no literal time before men knew about evil. Instead, I think the point is that men have it as part of their basic nature to defy what they know to be the will of God, and that the freedom to defy God is ultimately a cause of hardship and suffering in the world.

Taking it as an allegory, there was no "Fall of Man" in reality and the story really relates that our failings in a spiritual sense are and have always been a part of the species (and hence they show that these failings existed even in the hypothetical "first man"). Similarly, the allegorical "Original Sin" with which we are all born is not something we "inherit" from Adam and Eve, it's a condition that is fundamentally endemic to who and what we are: we are beings with free will who can (and will) do things that we know are contrary to God's desires.

But God says The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil, after he ate from the Tree.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that Adam and Eve did not know good from evil before eating from the tree.

So, yes, they did disobey God, but at the time they disobeyed God, they did not know it was wrong to do so.

maybe knowing good and evil, and disobeying god arent the same.

I don't think "right and wrong," "good and bad" and "good and evil" are the same things.

Oh, neither do I, there's a definite difference. And I understand your view that even though they disobeyed, that doesn't really quailify as a sin, simply, wrong. But is it? One of the Ten Commandments was 'Honor your father & mother'. If you disobey that commandment, it's a sin. It may not be evil, but still wrong, and a sin.

I think it's also clear that not all sin is evil. I mean, doing work on the Sabbath is a sin...but one can come up with countless examples of that are not exactly "evil."

Looking at the Judeo-Christian Creation story in an allegorical sense, I disagree with the common Christian interpretation of it being the "Fall of Man" and "Original Sin".

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?

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.

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 and wisdom on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp self-determination.
... when mankind is fully mature, it will no longer need its father.
Mankind, when it reaches maturity, will have transcended a need for father, therefore will have transcended a need for God.

What do you think?
That was great. Ayn Rand made the same observations, but her treatment was much more antagonistic.

I found your interpretation quite thought provoking. If frankly makes a lot more sense than the traditional interpretation.

The only disagreement I would have is with your final statement, that when mankind is mature he will have trancended the need for God.

As an adult, have you trancended the need for your parents? No. You are simply no longer dependent on them. It is still good to have a relationship with them.

Another point is when would we be considered "fully mature"? As an adult, my abilities are the equal of and may even exceed that of my parents. So will mankind, when he is fully mature, have all the powers of God?

I once read a SciFi story in which God gets perturbed with the captain of a starship for invading heaven when his ship enters hyperspace. His ship has a team of lawyers on board and they give him many different arguments as to why they should be allowed to travel thru hyperspace (heaven).

God examines them all and points out their errors in an instant. Finally, the Captain uses the argument given to him by an angel. Simply that a child seeks to be like his father.

God thinks about this one, and the captain suddenly feels his perspective shifting and suddenly finds that he is now God.

That was great.
Thanks.
I respect your opinion a good deal (even if you ARE a right-wing wacknut), so that means something to me.

Ayn Rand made the same observations, but her treatment was much more antagonistic.
The only thing I ever read by Rand is Atlas Shrugged (right-wing propaganda, of course - but well written).
What was it called?
Where can I read it?

The only disagreement I would have is with your final statement, that when mankind is mature he will have trancended the need for God.

As an adult, have you trancended the need for your parents? No. You are simply no longer dependent on them. It is still good to have a relationship with them.

Another point is when would we be considered "fully mature"? As an adult, my abilities are the equal of and may even exceed that of my parents. So will mankind, when he is fully mature, have all the powers of God?

I struggled with that part quite a bit.
I have transcended the need for my parents.
I love them.
I care about them.
I greatly appreciate having them in my life.
My relationship with them is important and special to me.
I will be hurt when they die (more my mother than my father, to be honest).

I do not, however, need them anymore.
I do not need their guidance and advice.
They don't feed, clothe or house me.
If they died tomorrow, I would not perish with them.
I do very much appreciate my relationship with my parents, but when I became a man, I transcended my need for them.
They have done their job as parents.

I once read a SciFi story in which God gets perturbed with the captain of a starship for invading heaven when his ship enters hyperspace. His ship has a team of lawyers on board and they give him many different arguments as to why they should be allowed to travel thru hyperspace (heaven).

God examines them all and points out their errors in an instant. Finally, the Captain uses the argument given to him by an angel. Simply that a child seeks to be like his father.

God thinks about this one, and the captain suddenly feels his perspective shifting and suddenly finds that he is now God.

Interesting perspective.
I think that we do not have to be parents to be mature (though we shouldn't be parents until we are mature), but we are mature when we no longer need them.
When we no longer need God, we have matured as a people.
What happens after that?
I've no clue.

The only thing I ever read by Rand is Atlas Shrugged (right-wing propaganda, of course - but well written).
What was it called?
Where can I read it?
Well, for one thing, there is a passage in Atlas Shrugged that deals with this. It occurs in the speech by John Galt.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.

Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
I think she may also have touched on it in some of her straight philosophy books such as Philosophy, Who Needs It?

It's been years since I read that.
I need to pick it up again.
Thanks.

I just find it odd that someone banged their sister in the beginning.......

I just find it odd that someone banged their sister in the beginning.......

Who did that? :bugeye:
Neither were "concieved", so they were not brother and sister.
God created Eve as a companion for Adam.

It's been years since I read that.
I need to pick it up again.
Thanks.
No problem. As I said, Rand was pointing out many of the same things as you. But she was doing it to discredit Christianity, whereas your analysis actually serves to make some sense of a story that really doesn't make much sense otherwise.

The Torah is the section of the Tanakh that is supposed to be a history of the Jews.
The creation story from the Torah closely parallels and is likely based on the Sumerian Creation story.
The Sumerian civilization was one of the first in the world (as far as we know) - certainly one of the first in the Middle East.
As far as anyone can tell, the first "man" came out of Ethiopia, migrated through Djibouti crossed the Mandab Strait into Yemen.

Early man, like all primates, likely thrived along Riparian habitats.
Until he developed the necessary agrarian skills required to sustain large numbers of people in an environment, he would have been nomadic.
Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans was sea food obtained by beachcombing as he followed the shore of the Red Sea south to Djibouti, where he could see land (Yemen) across the Mandab Strait.
From there, following the water, they ended up settling in Sumer (modern day Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates - two of the rivers in Genesis).

NIV Genesis 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Sumer had people farming the lands at least as far back as 6600 BCE.
The earliest records we have of Sumerian religion date back to about 4000 BCE.
They were a polytheistic people.

When did man become man?
When he could tell stories.

The earliest humans recognized their many vulnerabilities and were keenly aware of their own mortality.
They did not have fur to protect them from the elements.
They did not have razor sharp claws and fangs to fight off predators.
They were not terribly fast runners.
They could not see very well in the dark.
They could not swim long distances.

Humans had two saving graces on which to depend for survival: intellect and community; aside from that, they were weak and knew it.
Everywhere humans looked, there was something more powerful than they were.
These more powerful things held sway over their lives, and as a result, over their collective psyche.
People fear what is more powerful than them.
They also respect what is more powerful than them.
People began to anthropomorphise the forces of nature and animals and tell stories about them.
They began to pray to what was more powerful than them.
They began to develop Gods - God to fear - Gods to worship - Gods to respect - Gods to beg for food and rain - Gods to blame for drought and pestilence.

Man was at the mercy of the Gods for everything, including whether or not there would be food for him to eat.
Man learning to plant and harvest crops, farm animals and use the river to irrigate fields gave him the ability to stop migrating to follow food and settle Sumer.

Settling Sumer gave man the ability to have control over his own destiny.
He built houses.
He planted crops.
He irrigated fields.
He raised animals.

There was still draught, disease and other problems to face, but man was becoming more powerful, and learned how to deal with these problems as a community.
He was no longer at complete mercy of the whims of the Gods.

Adam and Eve was the Sumerian story of how man grasped the gauntlet of self-determination and took power from the Gods to control his own life.

Abraham was Sumerian.

They began to develop Gods - God to fear - Gods to worship - Gods to respect - Gods to beg for food and rain - Gods to blame for drought and pestilence.

Man was at the mercy of the Gods for everything, including whether or not there would be food for him to eat.
Man learning to plant and harvest crops, farm animals and use the river to irrigate fields gave him the ability to stop migrating to follow food and settle Sumer.

Settling Sumer gave man the ability to have control over his own destiny.
He built houses.
He planted crops.
He irrigated fields.
He raised animals.

There was still draught, disease and other problems to face, but man was becoming more powerful, and learned how to deal with these problems as a community.
He was no longer at complete mercy of the whims of the Gods.

Adam and Eve was the Sumerian story of how man grasped the gauntlet of self-determination and took power from the Gods to control his own life.

Abraham was Sumerian.
It might also be the transition point from polytheism to monotheism. Notice that the garden of eden story is one of the few places where God says "us"
NIV Genesis 3:2 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us
A world with multiple gods is ruled by the capricious nature of these many gods, it is a fundamentaly irrational and incomprehensible place.

But a universe with one God has rules that can be understood by the human mind. It is a universe in which man is not at the mercy of a pantheon of gods who arbitrarily decide his fate.

One God, one set of rules which the human mind can grasp and manipulate to his benefit.

So when man left the garden of eden, a place where his every need was provided for him by the gods, he left a world he could never understand and entered a world of rational thought. Of cause and effect. Of right and wrong.

So back to the question..
Why was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil placed in the Garden of Eden?
Why put it there if they were not supposed to eat from it?


I was always taught it was to test his faith or obedience.
Anyway, since when does a plant have to be edible for it to be in a garden ? ;)

Now that i think of it, it is kind of strange the the tree was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. You would almost think God didnt want Adam to know good from evil..
Or, since God is supposed to be all-knowing, God set up Adam to eat from it. And God had it planned for Adam all along.

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?

Because the Hebrews who wrote Genesis needed a way of explaining why man has such a hard life in a world created by a perfect and benevolent God.

The only way out was to blame it on man, whos life was idyllic in the beginning, but fell from grace through original sin, and was thus cursed..."in the sweat of thy face thou shall eat bread. til thou return to the ground, for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shall return".

I was always taught it was to test his faith or obedience.
Anyway, since when does a plant have to be edible for it to be in a garden ? ;)

Now that i think of it, it is kind of strange the the tree was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. You would almost think God didnt want Adam to know good from evil..
Or, since God is supposed to be all-knowing, God set up Adam to eat from it. And God had it planned for Adam all along.

To psychologize it: it creates a pattern where the older males in a group can say to everyone else: don't ask questions about certain things and avoid certain experiences BECAUSE we told you so. This makes the myth attractive to those with power because it creates a model for arbritrary elder male control of knowledge and experience. This may have even been the intention of making the myth this way, not that this had to be conscious on the parts of the mythmakers.

To psychologize it: it creates a pattern where the older males in a group can say to everyone else: don't ask questions about certain things and avoid certain experiences BECAUSE we told you so. This makes the myth attractive to those with power because it creates a model for arbritrary elder male control of knowledge and experience. This may have even been the intention of making the myth this way, not that this had to be conscious on the parts of the mythmakers.This sounds like what my wife says:Men invented religion so they would never have to say, "I don't know."

Regardless of how true or untrue the story itself is, I thought that was a very thorough and well-thought out examination of it, I enjoyed reading.

It might also be the transition point from polytheism to monotheism.

Exactly.
I think it is plausible that the two go hand-in-hand.
The more control you take over your own life, the less Gods/Demons you need.

Regardless of how true or untrue the story itself is, I thought that was a very thorough and well-thought out examination of it, I enjoyed reading.

Thank you.

Although i played no part in the debate I also enjoyed reading the posts. It illustrates that it is possible to discuss religious texts without resorting to insult and injury.

It helps that the thread is in the right place!

A few thoughts,

Could this story have something to do with "Moses" explaining or telling their story of the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt? I have often wondered why Moses' choice of a "snake in the garden", why the two trees etc. Where did these ideas come from?

Did not the Pharaoh (God incarnated/God's son, a god, but also a man) have on his head dress a serpent? (This serpent is depicted in some instances with 6 legs - were these the six legs that were removed when the serpent was told in Genesis, it would no longer walk but "crawl on its belly"? Depicting its destruction. The serpent God in Eqypt, Hetepes-Sekhus was a symbol of power, oppression and deception. Re, Hetepes, and Pharaoh were "destroyed" by YHWH when the Jews left Egypt under Moses along with many of the other lesser God's of Egypt.

Maybe this was Moses' way of showing the people of Israel that YHWH, their 'true' Creator God and more powerful than the 'false' Re, the creator God of the Egyptians.

Re/Amon Re was the most powerful god of Egypt, he had the Underworld Cobra goddess represented on Pharaoh's head dress as his all seeing eye. It is she who conquers Osiris's enemies, death and chaos. Amon Re was the king of Gods, a creator god, master of life and shown to be a primeval deity and a symbol of creative force. Did not Re travel through the sea of Reeds in to the underworld. In this story within the Torah, did not the children of Israel pass through this "sea of Reeds" where Pharaoh and his soldiers were destroyed.

The Egyptian texts seem to assign great antiquity to Ra's existence - it seems that he was the creator God of the Egyptians. YHWH destroyed Amon Re, and Moses rod, when it became a serpent ate the Magician's rods that turned into serpents could show the destruction of Hetepes-Sekhus.

So is this story in Genesis simply how the Jewish people made sense of what happened to them in Egypt? Maybe they came out of Egypt into their own land and needed to tell their own story of creation, and their relation to YHWH that created them and brought them out of Egypt? Hence the Genesis 1 & 2 accounts of creation, humanity, etc, and subsequent chapters, showing humanities progression from Israel's perspective.

I am still learning, but I thought it may spark some discussion.

Exactly.
I think it is plausible that the two go hand-in-hand.
The more control you take over your own life, the less Gods/Demons you need.

On the presumption that polytheism preceded monotheism.

History of course, appears to say otherwise.

The more control you take over your own life, the less Gods/Demons you need. There isn't much evidence of strong religions with gods among pre-agricultural people - which fits, in a way: hunter/gatherers may feel they have more "control" over their fates than farmers waiting for rain do.

On the presumption that polytheism preceded monotheism.

History of course, appears to say otherwise. I doubt history goes back far enough to have much say in the matter.

History of course, appears to say otherwise.

Not according to everything I have ever read on the subject.

Artizan007,

Interesting stuff.
I need to do some more research.
Do you have more information about the six-legged "serpent" on the pharoah's headdress?

It wasn't the "Tree of Knowledge", it was the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

Not according to everything I have ever read on the subject.

Perhaps you need to read a little more in depth:

e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urmonotheismus

http://www.worldspirituality.org/primitive-monotheism.html

“China, India, Egypt, and Greece all agree in the monotheistic type of their early religion. The Orphic hymns, long before the advent of the popular divinities, celebrated the Pantheos, the Universal God. The odes compiled by Confucius testify to the early worship of Shangte, the Supreme Euler. The Vedas speak of ‘one unknown true Being, all-present, all-powerful; the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of the universe.’ And in Egypt, as late as the time of Plutarch, there were still vestiges of a monotheistic worship. ‘The other Egyptians,’ he says, ‘all made offerings at the tombs of the sacred beasts; but the inhabitants of the Thebaid stood alone in making no such offerings, not regarding as a god anything that can die, and acknowledging no god but one, whom they call Kneph, who had no birth, and can have no death. Abraham, in his wanderings, found the God of his fathers known and honored in Salem, in Gerar, and in Memphis; while at a later day Jethro, in Midian, and Balaam, in Mesopotamia, were witnesses that the knowledge of Jehovah was not yet extinct in those countries.’”[130]

Perhaps you need to read a little more in depth

Or perhaps you should stop giving merit to baseless Christian apologetic nonsense, like Urmonotheismus. :D

If you read more "in-depth" you will see that Urmonotheismus is pretty much entirely discounted by religious historians that have no agenda.

Or perhaps you should stop giving merit to baseless Christian apologetic nonsense, like Urmonotheismus. :D

If you read more "in-depth" you will see that Urmonotheismus is pretty much entirely discounted by religious historians that have no agenda.

There is other literature out there, thats just the first one I remembered; I know from personal knowledge that Hinduism is based on early monotheism. The information on Chinese, Native American and Japanese religions is also available if you look for it.

The Arya Samaj for instance is a revival of Indian monotheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_Samaj#The_10_Principles_of_the_Arya_Samaj

The tree of knowledge was there for men and women to develop their will to dare to resist that which is beyond the realm of God. The tree of knowledge was to allow men to develop through millenia and have power of will grow because they knew that they could go against God's will but they choose not to. It is development of consciousness, unfortunately Adam and Eve gave in to the lust and they have given us the consciousness we have now...incomplete and small.

I know from personal knowledge that Hinduism is based on early monotheism.
You are going to have to convince me of that.

First, you will have a hard time proving that the Vedas is older than 1500 BCE.
Second, you will have to prove that it was intended to be interpreted as a monotheistic text. There are many (including may Hindus) that will disagree with you.
Third, any "history" the Vedas speaks of, is hardly relevant, because much of the stories were told as revelations that came part and parcel. In other words, I could come and say, "This is the truth, may thounsands of years ago there was this God..." and history starts with my words, not the God from many thousands of years ago that I just revealed the "history" of.

The information on Chinese, Native American and Japanese religions is also available if you look for it.
Believe me, I HAVE looked for it.
I have been looking for over 25 years.

I am not saying it is not possible, but I am saying that what religionists claim and what historians can verify are often very different things.
I have met Hindus who claim that the story of Hanuman is not only real, but happened one million years ago.
That doesn't mean that history supports those claims.

The tree of knowledge was there for men and women to develop their will to dare to resist that which is beyond the realm of God. The tree of knowledge was to allow men to develop through millenia and have power of will grow because they knew that they could go against God's will but they choose not to. It is development of consciousness, unfortunately Adam and Eve gave in to the lust and they have given us the consciousness we have now...incomplete and small.

As I said the first time you said that:
It wasn't the "Tree of Knowledge", it was the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

You are going to have to convince me of that.

First, you will have a hard time proving that the Vedas is older than 1500 BCE.
Second, you will have to prove that it was intended to be interpreted as a monotheistic text. There are many (including may Hindus) that will disagree with you.
Third, any "history" the Vedas speaks of, is hardly relevant, because much of the stories were told as revelations that came part and parcel. In other words, I could come and say, "This is the truth, may thounsands of years ago there was this God..." and history starts with my words, not the God from many thousands of years ago that I just revealed the "history" of.


Believe me, I HAVE looked for it.
I have been looking for over 25 years.

I am not saying it is not possible, but I am saying that what religionists claim and what historians can verify are often very different things.
I have met Hindus who claim that the story of Hanuman is not only real, but happened one million years ago.
That doesn't mean that history supports those claims.

Are these Hindus Vedic scholars? Do you have a link? I have met Indians who study the scriptures and I have never heard anything of the sort. For most Indians, religion is a cultural paradigm and not a scholastic endeavor.

Also, I would be interested to know if there were any records before the Rig Veda.

By the way, monotheism is not simply the belief that there is a main, top or creator God in the pantheon - it is the belief that there is only one God.

Various belief systems in Hinduism (covering monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Concept_of_God

By the way, monotheism is not simply the belief that there is a main, top or creator God in the pantheon - it is the belief that there is only one God.

Various belief systems in Hinduism (covering monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Concept_of_God

Sure, just like the three *cough* gods in Christianity.

Sure, just like the three *cough* gods in Christianity.

The "three *cough* gods in Christianity" have nothing to do with this.
First of all, the Trinity was invented by the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea, and the Christian ideal of monotheism predates the Trinity by at least 300 years.
Secondly, the whole Christian monotheism idea was based on the Jewish monotheism, which was based on the Hebrews picking ONE God from the Gods they acknowledged existence of - which, of course, has it roots in Abraham's Sumerian polytheism.

The "three *cough* gods in Christianity" have nothing to do with this.
First of all, the Trinity was invented by the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea, and the Christian ideal of monotheism predates the Trinity by at least 300 years.
Secondly, the whole Christian monotheism idea was based on the Jewish monotheism, which was based on the Hebrews picking ONE God from the Gods they acknowledged existence of - which, of course, has it roots in Abraham's Sumerian polytheism.

And whats to say that the current change in Christianity (from Abrahams monotheism) does not reflect how monotheism is altered by political reformists into polytheism?

I notice even atheists prefer paganism to monotheism; perhaps they feel it dilutes the religious fervor? If so, the apparent powers enjoyed by "high priests" and "saints" would be one reason why monotheism would give away to polytheism.

Correction: I should have said, "approximately 300 years".

By the way, I know you are well aware that not all Christians follow the belief of the Trinity, because we have had this discussion before.

Correction: I should have said, "approximately 300 years".

By the way, I know you are well aware that not all Christians follow the belief of the Trinity, because we have had this discussion before.

But I am sure you are aware that they are a minority.

And whats to say that the current change in Christianity (from Abrahams monotheism) does not reflect how monotheism is altered by political reformists into polytheism?
All of known history, for one.

I notice even atheists prefer paganism to monotheism; perhaps they feel it dilutes the religious fervor?

Or, perhaps it is closer to human nature to acknowledge multiple Gods.
Perhaps it doesn't matter why the "prefer" this over that, as we are discussing the history of monotheism over polytheism, not current social trends.

If so, the apparent powers enjoyed by "high priests" and "saints" would be one reason why monotheism would give away to polytheism.
Actually, much of the reason for saints (in the Christian world) is the adoption of the Gods in polytheistic religions to convince them to convert.
Most of the saints and holidays found in the Christian "pantheon" were adopted from the people of the lands they conquered and can easily be traced difrectly back to them.

But I am sure you are aware that they are a minority.

Yes. Because the Roman Catholic Church conquered most of the known world in it's heyday.
Still, that says nothing, as the roots of Christianity can be traced back to Polytheistic Sumerian people.

(from Abrahams monotheism)

I think you are missing the point.
Abraham's Monotheism started with Ibrahim's Polytheism.

I think you are missing the point.
Abraham's Monotheism started with Ibrahim's Polytheism.

Umm and then descended into present day trinity, mormonism, and what not.

So why couldn't that be a repeating pattern?

So why couldn't that be a repeating pattern?

As I said, all the history I have read states that is not the case.
Show me reliable, valid sources which state otherwise.

As I said, all the history I have read states that is not the case.
Show me reliable, valid sources which state otherwise.

Do you mean history or opinion? There is a difference. e.g. look at Buddhism.

Logic would dictate that simple leads to complex.

Umm and then descended into present day trinity, mormonism, and what not.

So why couldn't that be a repeating pattern? The pattern seems to be an occasional eruption of monotheism from a background of polytheism, holding for a while and then slowly acquiring a variety of sub-gods and becoming more like its poly forbears.

We have no major monos without immediate poly roots, known by inspection and recent history. We do seem to have a few polys with any mono roots well buried in time.
Logic would dictate that simple leads to complex. So which is simple, which complex?

We note that languages, for example, tend to "simplify" over time, in many respects.

By the way, regardless of whether or not scritpure supports the Trinity interpretation, Triune Godhead is certainly NOT the same as Polytheism.

So which is simple, which complex?

Excellent question.

When do you think Adam and Eve lived?

No he's quite right...its Symbolic.


The mindset was totally different.

..now please dont ask why...me has a job and some Vino to drink.


cheers :p

Excellent question.

er dont look at me! :bugeye:

The Hebrews wrote the Tanakh for a reason.
Social control.
For more details, see below.

What I am looking for is what this story could have possibly meant, because I don't think the Christians got the interpretation of the Jewish story right.
It meant "Don't defy our sky bully, or you'll find yourself divinely smacked. Likewise, don't defy our nobility, clergy, and royals. They are authorities with divine mandates, thus you will likewise get smacked."
It's essentially an attempt to coerce the population into following their ruling class blindly and obediently.

It was a guide to life and living.
Shitty life and living.