Garden of Eden question

[Hohenheim]

Honestly, this discussion is one of the reasons that I enjoy taking the Genesis account of creation as allegorical. Now the details of it aren't as important as the big ideas and lessons conveyed within.

For example, a lot of people struggle with how God's omniscience and human free will interact in this scenario. If it's an allegorical tale meant to portray specific lessons about the nature of God, humans, and sin, then this problem can be mostly overlooked. (Though it does still leave some things to be talked about)

What I've come to learn is that the Bible isn't a simple book, as far as interpreting it goes. When I say that, I mean that if you can interpret one part of the Bible symbolically (like the Psalms), it doesn't mean the entire Bible is meant to be interpreted only that way. The Bible is a complex book full of all sorts of genres, and you have to read each part of it in its original context. So if you take the first three chapters of Genesis symbolically (which I see no wrong in doing), it doesn't mean the entire book of Genesis ought to be viewed that way. A large part of Genesis is written as history, but there's actually pretty good reasoning behind viewing the first three chapters as poetry, the first chapter especially (ending each stanza in "and there was evening, and there was morning--the first/second/etc. day" is one example).

Correct, though I would say that you could go farther (as many do) and say all of Genesis is symbolic without actually harming the rest of scripture. In fact, Augustine and Origen pioneered and championed the idea of taking Genesis (along with Revelation) as allegorical and in fact was the most popular interpretation for much of Christian history. Here's a wiki article in case anyone is curious:
Link.

First, I'm glad that theological discussions are being allowed, and that thus far they are being conducted with civility. Secondly, I happen to agree with Cog, RD, and Peanut on this one. I'm taking a 'Christian Heritage' course this semester, and I got to learn about the positions of Origen and Augustine just some weeks ago. Personally, I think someone should always note the cultural context of the Bible; it leads one to a richer understanding of the texts as a whole.

[Syreth]

Without delving into any surrounding issues, I would just comment that the punishment resulting from humankind's choice to eat the forbidden fruit is evidence enough for me that it was a bad course of action. But good things can come from even a bad course of action.

[Shao Feng-Li]

It wasn't good thing that Adam ate the fruit, but it's God's will. I don't think we'll ever really know why He bothered at all with any of this in the first place- at least not in this life.

Common questions
So God planned for this to happen?
Did he just know it would happen?
If he knew couldn't he change it?
If he changed it would it stop our free will?
Do we truly have free will?
If pre-destination is so, are we already guaranteed Heaven or Hell?
If God knows were we go, why bother making earth, why not just go straight to eternity?
Does God just not choose to look at the end of time (can he choose not to)?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:13-23&version=KJV

[Sammy Boy]

Okay, since theological discussions are allowed now, here's one of the ultimate questions that I've pondered: I was once told by an English professor that some people believe that it was actually a good thing Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. According to this argument, the act allowed them to learn wisdom. Does this seem right to you?

At its root, eating the forbidden fruit is disobedience against God's explicit command. Once we start justifying certain sinful actions as "good" or "acceptable", we run the risk of trivializing the serious consequences of sin.

Whatever "good" came as a result of disobedience only demonstrates the mercy and graciousness of God, in that good can come about in spite of sin, not because of it.

A similar argument I have heard is that sin is necessary because it then allows people to see that goodness is really good. I think this fails to take into account the fact that before creation or the existence of sin, God existed already, and God was good, and sin was not required in order for us to know that God was and is good.

[Nate]

It wasn't good thing that Adam ate the fruit, but it's God's will.

This is pretty much the position I take.

if people take this as symbolic and nothing more, does this mean that any or all of it is so

Yep, I'm one of the people who takes absolutely nothing in Genesis literally. That has no bearing on the rest of the Bible, though. It's only one book, and the purpose of Genesis is to show us the character of God, not provide a historical account.

It's kind of like, let's say I know a guy. And someone asks me about him and I say, "He's the kind of guy who'd give you the coat off his back if you're freezing. He volunteers a lot at homeless shelters. He has a short temper though, but he doesn't stay mad for long." In that, I have given no historical information. I haven't told you any specific dates or events that have happened. Yet, I have described his character using hypothetical situations, or things that I know happened but have not fully described. Genesis is much the same way. It's using stories and interactions with people to show us who God is. And since the Bible is full of many books with varying origins, it's no problem to take Genesis as not literal.

After all, there's many kinds of books in the Bible. Mythological, Law, historical, prophetical, praise, wisdom, erotic poetry, letters...the Bible has a lot of different books made for different purposes. Acts, for example, is a vastly different book than Proverbs...which is a vastly different book from Romans. All three of those books have truths about God to tell us, but they're not all meant to be read the same way, and they're not all written the same way.

sin was not required in order for us to know that God was and is good

Er, except the Bible states that Adam and Eve didn't know what good was until they ate the fruit. Thus, they couldn't have known God was good. We only know God is good because of their sin, we're looking at the matter using evidence and knowledge they didn't have.

[Midori]

It wasn't good thing that Adam ate the fruit, but it's God's will.

That implies that God's will was for something bad to happen, and since I define "Good" as meaning what God wants...I don't really like that. On the other hand, a parallel can be drawn to the situation of Judas; Jesus says "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Meaning that it was inevitable that someone would betray him, but it's still a terrible sin. Of course, given the reason it was inevitable was because of original sin and the fall of man, it boils back down to Adam and Eve. Was it inevitable that they would eat the fruit? I think it's unlikely that God would say "Do not eat it" if he intended his command to be broken. Free will is what allows people to go against God; because they choose, not because God makes them. If it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would sin, then they would not really have free will, would they? And why would he say they were made in his image if they did not have free will?

[Nate]

That implies that God's will was for something bad to happen, and since I define "Good" as meaning what God wants...I don't really like that.

But there are Biblical examples of God's will being bad (for humans). A good example is the flood of Genesis, where all of humanity save one family was killed off. Another example is the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt, obviously God's will since God is the one who killed them.

Or how about the fact that it was God's will for Christ to be tortured and killed? Obviously, this was for mankind's redemption, and the act itself caused good, but the fact that the torture and the death itself are fairly bad things is inarguable I think.

I won't list Job, since God didn't really tell Satan "I want you to do bad things," God just kind of said "You can if you want."

Was it inevitable that they would eat the fruit?

Since they didn't know the difference between good and evil, I'd say yes. How can they choose to do good if they don't know what good is? How could they know that they should obey God if they don't know the difference between right and wrong?

I think it's unlikely that God would say "Do not eat it" if he intended his command to be broken.

I think He did intend for it to be broken, but the reason He commanded not to eat of it was to show the consequences of disobeying God to future generations. Besides, God can't (I think) command a person to do an evil act, even if that evil act is His will. So even though God intended for the fruit to be eaten, He could not command them to eat the fruit.

Makes sense to me.

Free will is what allows people to go against God]
Then how do you explain the verses in Exodus where it specifically says God hardened Pharaoh's heart? That to me seems to be a pretty good case of God making someone go against Him, not doing it because of their own choosing.

If it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would sin, then they would not really have free will, would they?

Yep. And I don't think they did. Because free will means being able to freely choose between good and evil. Since they didn't have knowledge of good or evil, how could they choose between them? The angels have free will, they know good and evil and can pick a side, which is why a third of them rebelled against God willingly.

And why would he say they were made in his image if they did not have free will?

Does God have free will, though? That seems an odd question, but if you're going to define free will as "Being able to choose between good and evil," then God clearly does not. God cannot choose to do an evil act. God is incapable of performing an evil act. Thus, God cannot choose between good and evil, as God is good incarnate, and cannot defy His own nature.

As to what it means by us being made in God's image, that's another question entirely I believe. A quick google search reveals a few theories, including reason/logic, and the ability to know God (which would separate us from plants and animals). There might be more meaning behind what that phrase means in the original language, but I'm no Hebrew scholar.

[Sammy Boy]

Yep, I'm one of the people who takes absolutely nothing in Genesis literally. That has no bearing on the rest of the Bible, though. It's only one book, and the purpose of Genesis is to show us the character of God, not provide a historical account.

Could you just clarify whether by this you mean that you accept the historical existence of some people described in the book (i.e. Abraham, Jacob, etc.) but that you do not take other parts literally (e.g. the degree to which the creation story is interpreted literally, when certain events actually happened) ?

Er, except the Bible states that Adam and Eve didn't know what good was until they ate the fruit. Thus, they couldn't have known God was good. We only know God is good because of their sin, we're looking at the matter using evidence and knowledge they didn't have.

Yes, I shouldn't have written "we know" because it's like you've said, we're looking with extra knowledge. What I meant was that even if there wasn't sin, God is still good.

On your point of Adam and Eve not knowing what good was until the fruit was eaten, what's your view on their punishment? If they did not know what was good or bad, are they morally culpable for their actions? Or are you of the view that since they disobeyed a direct order from God, they deserved their punishment regardless of their knowledge of good and evil?

[Atria35]

On your point of Adam and Eve not knowing what good was until the fruit was eaten, what's your view on their punishment? If they did not know what was good or bad, are they morally culpable for their actions? Or are you of the view that since they disobeyed a direct order from God, they deserved their punishment regardless of their knowledge of good and evil?

Can I throw my two cents in on that one?

Adam and Eve not knowing good from evil makes them like children. Did they understand the consequences of the actions? Why they shouldn't eat from the apple from the tree?

If a three-year-old pushes another into the street, and the second kid gets run over, do you sentence the one who pushed to life in jail? Even though you would if it was an adult, a kid doesn't understand the consequences of what happened. They likely understand that the kid who got run over got hurt, but probably don't understand that that kid is dead and will never be there again. They will understand that th other kid's parents are sad, but not that they'll be sad for a long time- probably forever. They'll understand that what they did was wrong. But is that enough to take them to court and sentence them for manslaughter?

That being said.... I can only speak from a human perspective.

[Nate]

Could you just clarify whether by this you mean that you accept the historical existence of some people described in the book (i.e. Abraham, Jacob, etc.) but that you do not take other parts literally (e.g. the degree to which the creation story is interpreted literally, when certain events actually happened)

I accept that there were probably some people in the book that actually existed, such as Abraham and Jacob, yes. But I don't believe that many of the events described happened, and I'd call anything before Genesis 12 pretty much complete fiction, or at the very least, so far removed from actual events that they're practically fiction.

If they did not know what was good or bad, are they morally culpable for their actions? Or are you of the view that since they disobeyed a direct order from God, they deserved their punishment regardless of their knowledge of good and evil?

I believe they are not responsible for their actions, seeing as how they were incapable of discerning good from evil. However, their actions were still sin. As to whether they deserved their punishment...eh. I don't really have the right to judge that I suppose. It's God's will so y'know...whatever. Can't really argue with it, even if I were to disagree, and disagreeing is pointless anyway.

[Rusty Claymore]

Just something to throw in here, but when God made everything, he pronounced all of it "good." Even Man. Adam and Eve knew what good was, since they walked and talked with God, and lived in His perfect Garden. As for responsible, God told them not to eat of the tree of the... well, you know what happened. God placed the responsibility of the Garden and his own choices into Adam's hands. Also, verse 3:17 states, "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast..." (italics mine for emphasis) the word 'because' means that it is in direct corellation with what Adam had done, in other words, Adam was responsible.
How I see things( aka imho) if Adam and Eve weren't responsible, then God is allowing all humans to suffer for something they didn't do. If that's the case God is the worst deity ever, worse than Satan himself, and a liar as well, seeing that he calls for justice and integrity, yet is unjust by His own standards.

[rocklobster]

Yes, they clearly sinned. As I learned from my CCD classes (the Catholic equivalent of Sunday School, btw), there are two requirements for an act to be called a sin:
1. The will.
2. The knowledge that it is wrong.
They knew what they were doing was wrong. Eve herself says so when the serpent tries to talk her into it. And besides, I believe God wanted to teach us more about his way, but Adam and Eve weren't ready yet. It's like riding a bicycle. You don't start with both of the wheels, you use training wheels first. Then when you're ready, the training wheels are off and the rest is up to you. We weren't ready for the training wheels to come off yet.

[Dante]

Yes, they clearly sinned. As I learned from my CCD classes (the Catholic equivalent of Sunday School, btw), there are two requirements for an act to be called a sin:
1. The will.
2. The knowledge that it is wrong.

I must disagree there Rocklobster, even if we suppose that these are the two requirements for something to be considered a sin, then ultimately you cannot conclude 2, as they cannot have the knowledge that it is wrong without the knowing what wrong is. If good and evil are foreign concepts to them, they cannot rightfully discriminate between acts that have one attribute or another - they're not human in the classical sense of the experience that we have known for our whole lives.

Just something to throw in here, but when God made everything, he pronounced all of it "good." Even Man. Adam and Eve knew what good was, since they walked and talked with God, and lived in His perfect Garden.

Wait a second here. You can't really say that Adam and Eve walking and talking to God implies God gave them a talk about "what good was". They're equally as likely to discuss Bob Marley. Further, you can't state that the tree's fruit only granted an understanding of one aspect, other wise it would be known as the tree of the "knowledge of evil". The "and" is critical here, it implies (whether anyone likes it or not) that knowledge of good AND evil were represented in the fruit and not just evil.

[Nate]

Pascal said what I was going to say, it's the tree of knowledge of good AND evil, not tree of knowledge of evil. They didn't know what good was. They didn't know what evil was. If they didn't know what good was, they didn't know it was good to obey God. Eve didn't say that it was good to obey God or that eating the fruit was wrong to the serpent. She just stated a fact, "God told us not to eat from it." That doesn't imply knowledge of good or evil, she was just stating a fact. "It is cold where I live" doesn't imply that I like the weather or that I hate it, I'm just stating that it is cold.

[Midori]

I was going to go with the theory that the fruit did not impart the knowledge of good and evil, until I ran into this verse:
[indent]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.” (Genesis 3:22)[/indent]
Well then.

So is gaining the knowledge of what is right and wrong a sin? This reminded me of something in Romans I'd studied in Bible Quizzing:
[indent] What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Romans 7:7-13)[/indent]
The "law" here is obviously that which says what is right and what is wrong, like the ten commandments, etc. So, going by what Paul wrote, you cannot sin if you don't know what is right and what is wrong. ...

However, when God says to Adam “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16-17), this looks quite a lot like a commandment, doesn't it? Doesn't the word "must" mean that there is a right and wrong involved?

An alternative way of looking at that is that God is not giving a command, but informing Adam of the consequences. "You are free to do anything you want, but if you eat this you will die." Since there was no death or sin before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, eating the fruit brought death into the world. But sin is just that: that which leads to death and suffering. So, choosing the path that leads to death must be a sin, right?

Another possibility is that, since there was no sin before they ate the fruit, there was no way for Adam and Eve to know what sin was. The only way to know was by sinning--that is, disobeying God's command. This is just speculation, but Maybe the fruit wasn't magical at all; maybe all that the knowledge of good and evil required was breaking God's command? Then would it have been better if God had not given them this command? But he was just telling them the truth: if you eat it you will die.

But why would eating the fruit cause them to suffer and die? Is it only God's arbitrary punishment? God doesn't do things that are unjust. It must have been the best thing.

But...isn't the possibility of evil itself evil? Obviously, the concept of evil existed through all time, because God speaks of the knowledge of good and evil.

It basically boils back down to the question "Why would a perfect god let there be evil?" which has been asked many times. And to which the commonly accepted answer is "in order for people to have free will, to freely choose good."

So after thinking about this and arguing many directions of it, I have convinced myself of what I thought all along: it was not good that Adam chose death. However, it was good to let Adam have the choice between life and death. Otherwise God would not have created a universe where death could possibly exist.

[Nate]

[quote="Midori"][indent]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.â€

[Arya Raiin]

Interesting question! I've heard this before, so I'll give you what I arrived at. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they learned how to tell good from evil, yes. However that wasn't something God desired to happen thought he did know it would. With Adam and Eve eating the fruit and doing the one thing that God asked them NOT to do thought, made sin enter the world. Now, if any of you like I'll find the verses I need to say that the Tree of Life was and is reserved for us when we die. That is why Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat it, and thus it wasn't good that they did.

[Midori]

I don't think the tree of life is the same tree as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See the Genesis 3:22 verse above.

[Nate]

However that wasn't something God desired to happen thought he did know it would.

Then (since you apparently didn't read my earlier posts :p) if God didn't want it to happen, why did God make it impossible for them to not do it? Again, as has been said numerous times (especially by me), God made it absolutely impossible for them to choose to do the right thing, since Adam and Eve did not know what the right thing to do was. They could not choose to do good, because they didn't know what good was. They couldn't know it was wrong to disobey God, because they didn't know what wrong was.

This, to me, makes it clear that God did intend for them to eat from the tree, but that it was still the wrong thing for them to do.

EDIT: Also yes, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are two different trees, and Adam and Eve were able to eat from the Tree of Life before they sinned. But once they ate the other fruit, they couldn't eat from the Tree of Life anymore.

[Midori]

God made it absolutely impossible for them to choose to do the right thing, since Adam and Eve did not know what the right thing to do was. They could not choose to do good, because they didn't know what good was. They couldn't know it was wrong to disobey God, because they didn't know what wrong was.

Why couldn't they have chosen to trust God instead of Satan? Why couldn't they have chosen not to eat it? What they chose isn't the only thing they could have chosen. God says "You are free to eat from any of the trees." I don't think he would have said that if they weren't free to choose.

[Nate]

They could have chosen to trust, God, but why should they? They didn't know it was right to obey God. They didn't know God was good, nor did they know Satan was evil. Satan simply said "God misinformed you." They couldn't know God was good, so to them, it was just like "Oh well, this changes things then."

They could have chosen not to eat it, but why would they have? They wanted to have wisdom. They wanted to know what good and evil were. They couldn't know that it was bad to eat from the tree, so what incentive did they have to not eat from it?

[Atria35]

Why couldn't they have chosen to trust God instead of Satan? Why couldn't they have chosen not to eat it? What they chose isn't the only thing they could have chosen. God says "You are free to eat from any of the trees." I don't think he would have said that if they weren't free to choose.

You mean why couldn't they have chosen to believe the serpant, right? The original story never says Satan had a hand in it. Therefore, since all things in God's garden were good- why would they believe that they couldn't trust the serpant?

[Arya Raiin]

Bwah! Epic fail for me. Why did I not pay attention?!

I'm sorry, I'll correct my klutziness with words now! XD
Yes, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Good and Evil are definitely different! When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Good and Evil they lost their salvation, along with the rest of their descendants (all of humanity).

@Nate: Well, then let me ask you something Nate. Why did God give us free will if he wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit and humanity to fall? However, I'll say that I'm not sure myself why He did. I'm not sure if anyone can completely understand it. I just love getting peoples opinions.

[Nate]

Why did God give us free will if he wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit and humanity to fall?

Well, had humanity never fallen, He could never have shown the full depth of His love and mercy by sending His son to die for us.

Now some would argue that this show of love wouldn't even be necessary if A&E hadn't eaten from the tree in the first place, but that's beside the point.

Besides what's so great about free will? God's going to take it away from us again when we go to Heaven, unless you want to say we could purposely choose to sin in Heaven (whether we would want to or not is another story, I'm just asking COULD you do it? If you say you can't, then it's obvious free will will be removed).

[Okami]

I've got two questions for everyone, which is taken from one of my theology assignments.

What information does Genesis 3 give us about the identity of the being that tempted Eve? Can you locate any other passages that give further information about this being's identity?

Answering this question really changed what I used to think when it comes to the Garden of Eden. I was slightly mindblown by the unexpected results!

[Atria35]

[quote="Okami (post: 1434572)"]Answering this question really changed what I used to think when it comes to the Garden of Eden. I was slightly mindblown by the unexpected results! ]

The question is which version are you talking about? They all have something a little different about what's actually said, and each can be interpreted differently.

[Peanut]

You know, the more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that Augustine and Origen were right and that we should read at the very least the chapters leading up to story of Abraham as allegory. It just makes life easier.

Edit: Oh I should probably answer those questions...yeah...anyway.

What information does Genesis 3 give us about the identity of the being that tempted Eve? Can you locate any other passages that give further information about this being's identity?

For fun, I'll just answer the serpent. I think if we assume its anything else then a serpent then we are ruining the actual intent of the story, which is to be a mythical tale. It seems to me that the attribution of the serpent being more then just a serpent came later and, in our Christian circles, has been built around verse 15. If the story is taken allegorically then there really is nothing wrong with this since its not implying a misunderstanding of history by the biblical authors but a recrafting of the story to illustrate other points. We see this a lot within Christianity with many of the prophecies in the Old Testament that are attributed to Christ. If you point them out to any knowledgeable Jew they'll tell you they were referring to the present reality of when they were written. This is true, however it can and is also true that these prophecies can refer to future events as well.

[Okami]

The question is which version are you talking about? They all have something a little different about what's actually said, and each can be interpreted differently.

Ah, well in class we're only allowed to use more literal translations - NRSV (this is the text my professor uses) NASB (this is what I use) or TNIV. However, I've gone through with a few of the major current translations (NLT, MSG, NKJV, HCSB, AMP, ESV) and they all use the same word for the the creature.

[QtheQreater]

Okay, since theological discussions are allowed now, here's one of the ultimate questions that I've pondered: I was once told by an English professor that some people believe that it was actually a good thing Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. According to this argument, the act allowed them to learn wisdom. Does this seem right to you? I'm not sure if I ascribe to this belief because it almost makes it seem ilke Satan did the right thing, and I'm not sure if I want to think that.

Some people really do believe that, fervently. It's called Mormonism. I'm not sure most mainstream Mormons realize that their doctrine teaches this, but according to Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, Adam and Eve had to eat from the tree in order to become gods in their own right. It was good for them to do so; as I understand it, this actually mainly had to do with the fact that before the Fall, man couldn't, erm, procreate. They had to lose their "innocence" to do that.

Personally, since Satan is called the father of lies, the fall was such a dramatic event, and suffering entered the world after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, I really can't see how anyone could call the act itself "good." If Satan knew what good and evil was, nothing else in his character suggests that he would try to get Adam and Eve to do something good.

[Nate]

as I understand it, this actually mainly had to do with the fact that before the Fall, man couldn't, erm, procreate.

But...God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Why would God command them to do that if they were incapable of it? I'm sure they have a response to that if what you said is true, but still...