Hawkingfan

I am sure this has probably come up a million times, but I have wanted to discuss problems with the Adam and Eve story for quite some time.

My biggest problem is that Eve is blamed for the fall of man. See 1 Timothy 2:14 which says: "For Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
But if you read the scriptures Genesis 2:15-23 and Genesis 3:1-5, you will notice that God told Adam not to eat the fruit BEFORE Eve was created. It is implied later on that Adam or God relayed that message to her, but I do not see how Eve is to have MORE blame than Adam when it was Adam who heard it straight from the horses mouth. Why is Adam even exempt from being deceived? He WAS deceived.

Also, I do not see why God could blame Adam and Eve for sinning by disobeying him whenever they wouldn't be able to discern right from wrong BEFORE eating the fruit.

It also seems a slap in the face for God to put a guard around the Tree of Eternal life whenever he could have done the same for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (before they obeyed the serpent). It seems like he wanted them to fail.

Amos

Adam was not created until their eyes were opened. Adam is the ego consciousness of man first identified in the shame-no shame concept between Gen.2;25 and Gen.3:7 and called by name for the first time in verse 7 " Adam where are you?" So Adam had nothing to do with it but was created by the fall of man.

Vinnie

Mind explaining that in english?

Jeremy Pallant

That's as clear as he gets, Vinnie.

happyboy

amos is my hero! :notworthy

happyboy, fan of amos

Hawkingfan

The only response I'm going to get is from Amos? Not again?!
*SIGH*
Oh, well.

This does not make sense. Adam cannot open his eyes if he was not created yet. And it says nothing of Eve. It implies to me that you are not treating them as equals, a very sexist thing to do.
GE 2:7 : "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a LIVING BEING." This was before the fall.

GE 1:28 : "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number,..."
That implies Adam was of flesh and blood. This was before the sin.

I've been over this with you before, Amos. There is no such thing as an ego and the biblical writers would have had no idea what the concept means. This is your own interpretation that I do not agree with, and I'm sure many Christians don't either. Can we just agree to disagree?

No one knows what "shame-no shame" means, Amos. Only you. And judging from your other nonsense, I really don't care. Adam called by name means nothing.
You have failed to persuade me. Adam had just as much to do with it as Eve. He ate the fruit just like Eve did. I think it is sexist to say otherwise.
You mentioned nothing about the other two issues I brought up, but as you know, I could care less what you think. Consider this your official pat on the head and you may now sit in the corner.

Does anyone who can argue without extreme metaphorical nonsense, with use of good diction, with use of proper denotation, reply to me? I'd really prefer to ignore Amos.

Vinnie

http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/banhim.html

Hawkingfan, ancient Jewish texts relate the story of how Eve told Adam that if he didn't eat teh fruit she was going to withhold teh bootay! He then did what all guys would have done. Even if Adam was homosexual he would have done teh same. Its all about teh lack of options.

To put the issue simply, the biggest problem with a literal Adam and Eve garden story is evolution. After that comes internal nonsense such as your statement wondering why "God could blame Adam and Eve for sinning by disobeying him whenever they wouldn't be able to discern right from wrong BEFORE eating the fruit."

The account is mythological. I personally like myths. I think they can do a very good job of relaying truth sometimes but when we historicize a myth or accept all its details as factual we end up with utter nonsense. Welcome to Fundamentalism and Evangelicism of the new milenium

Historicizing mythological accounts yields nonsense. This applies not only to early Genesis but to other places as well including some aspects of the Gospels.

Vinnie

Bobzammel

The main theme of Genesis, in Judaism, is Man's attempt to be like God-or the Gods. First, he eats the apple and gains knowledge. Then, their is mating between God's "sons" and human women. The final step in this is probably the Tower of Babel, where man attempts to reach God. So all the time man is striving to be like God, but God puts sanctions in and eventually makes a compromise. It's not until Christianity that this story really takes on the concept of "Original sin".

Hawkingfan

You're right. But I did not wish to discuss Evolution or else I would have placed the post there. I wanted to discuss the contradictions in the text which is why I placed it in Biblical Criticism. I think it will yield a more effective debate by covering only a couple points instead of encompassing all of Evolution.

Right again. Except I'm not accepting it as factual. Maybe, I didn't make that clear. I am trying to prove to the fundies that it is nonsense and giving logical reasons for this by critisizing the text, not accepting it. I was wanting to argue some more with the likes of spurly, thebeast (I like making him angry-but I think he was a troll), Thomas Cassidy, etc. because I have enjoyed the debates with them.

Hawkingfan

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the bible does not say an "apple" was eaten, but a "fruit". It was not until much later that people said an apple was eaten. This was because apples are often used in witchcraft (if you slice it down the middle of the core, two pentagrams are revealed on the two pieces).

I also don't know what you mean by God's "sons" mating with human women (still kind of sounds sexist to me).

I'm not sure what you mean by God making comprimises, either, especially since in Genesis God destroyed ALL of man (who obviously were not trying to reach or be like God as you have said) by the flood--not much of a compromise there.