Adam & Eve are bad, bad people. Or are they? (do I even need to put the chapter reference here? Genesis 2:4-3:24)

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Redbaron-------- and Jesus is the second Adam --not the second Eve ----Adam was the anointed one to oversee the Garden not Eve --Eve was the anointed one's helper ----

If you don't want to believe that Adam was a type of Christ --that is your right -----I believe different than you ---just accept that and move on ----keep your belief and I will keep mine

1624129807775.png
 
Taptaptaptappitytaptaptap

Maybe if you would answer the question the first time I ask it I wouldn't have to repeat it numerous times.
 
Same old non answer. Blahblahblah taptaptap
Still no response to a simple question.
 
Where were we before this unfortunate interlude? Oh yes-- hiding from God (who comes looking for us), suddenly aware of nakedness and guilt. Yet for all that awareness, also an unwillingness to own up to it and confess. Always making excuses, or blaming other people or circumstances. It seems it was ever thus. How do we overcome that tendency?
 
My question is that, if the Adam and Eve archetypes had not eaten from the Tree of Good and Evil, then how on Earth were they supposed to know that disobeying God was "evil"?

And given that, why, as soon as they became aware of "good and evil", was their first action to cover their nakedness (I don't think being unclothed is particularly "evil", particularly if you're alone with your spouse in a garden with only God to observe), rather than to run to God to apologize for what they should immediately have understood as evil, i.e. their disobedience?
 
Redbaron-------- and Jesus is the second Adam --not the second Eve ----Adam was the anointed one to oversee the Garden not Eve --Eve was the anointed one's helper ----

If you don't want to believe that Adam was a type of Christ --that is your right -----I believe different than you ---just accept that and move on ----keep your belief and I will keep mine

View attachment 5163
Yes, later writers REINTERPRETED Jewish Scripture as they tried to understand how Jesus revealed God. That does not change the fact that in the original telling Adam was not and could not be a typological tool to reveal Christ. Insisting that Jewish Scripture only has meaning as understood by Christian thought is an act of violence against Scripture and against our Jewish siblings.
 
I suggest that the text was a story created to try and understand the lived experience of separation from GOd and the knowledge that humans are not what they could be. I also suggest the text reflects a longing for a more complete/closer relationship with the Divine that morphed into a belief that such a relationship was once the reality.

The story tries to explain some really deep questions about life and behaviour and our relationship to the God (and to the Imago Dei that is a part of our very being -- although this Creation story does not actually claim humanity was created in God's Image). I think it also speaks to God's need for companionship. Does God create Adam because God wants company? Does God need the proto-humans to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to have a real relationship with them?

The story is not history, it is theological narrative (some claim the first glimpses of remembered history do not enter the text until the beginning of the Abraham saga, I tend to wonder if that does not really occur until the beginning of Exodus). As Theological narrative what happens is always choices by the author(s) and editor(s)/redactor(s).
 
Parody, parable, etc. thus the difficult things to perceive are buried for those that choose to be part of the unconscious side of the great dark void called psyche/mind/sol (some say an indication of the non existential; thus it incarnates as "it can't be so"):


The old adage is; "if you can't say anything nice ... put it in an incredible form" ... so it can't be believed by those unreceptive to hidden and sacred truths!

It will be debated eternally ... by those that believe only in good news ... the bad NU' slithers up to "M"! Toxic awareness ... sometimes known as apocalypse, or apocalyptic ... when the light appears in dark humour!

One side of everything is dark and the other side of everything is blinding light ... as one crosses the line into the line of fire --- John Cash! C'est Fini ... of the slippery myth that evades the masses of reality! They fail to see what went bad ... self-centered parody that cannot escape slavery of the paen of learning?

Thus the vast domain of the yet unlearnt ... wisdom is a definition hard to grasp in our presence, often excluded as "we don't need to know"!

(to be continued?)
 
Last edited:
Comment from above --------My question is that, if the Adam and Eve archetypes had not eaten from the Tree of Good and Evil, then how on Earth were they supposed to know that disobeying God was "evil"?

I say ----my view
They didn't know ---God gave them the Command and He gave them the Consequence if they did eat from it ----------that is all they knew ----

Genesis 2 narrates that God places the first man and woman in a garden with trees of whose fruits they may eat, but forbids them to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam and Eve only knew God's Goodness and His world and His word ------they had no prior knowledge of what God considered Good and Evil -----they were only experiencing God's Goodness of plenty and Blessings in the Garden -----they were connected to God ----they were ignorant of any evil which would disconnect them from God -----so the remedy for ignorance is Knowledge ------and Satan was hell bent on them gaining that knowledge through him --not God ---

So what does this word evil mean in Hebrew

Transliteration
raʿ
  1. evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
    1. evil, distress, adversity
    2. evil, injury, wrong
    3. evil (ethical)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say
There are certain things that Adam and Eve were not ready to experience and know ------knowledge is not a bad thing but it can be overwhelming if we are not ready to receive it ---

Hebrews 5 says ---read whole Chapter Yourselves for Context --------I am just posting this

Warning Against Falling Away​

11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe ----That God would have trained them to understand -----that God would have known when the time was right for Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil ---God put the Tree in the Garden so it was for a purpose that God would put such a tree there ----we are to serve God and give all glory to God -------For God to pick the time of when this knowledge would be revealed to Adam and Eve they would have been ready to receive and understand it --the Glory would have been God's ---- Adam and Eve would have benefited from the knowledge ---but they were not ready to receive this type of knowledge and it overwhelmed them -------

One minute they were experiencing Peace and Harmony and a good life ---the next they are experiencing distress and misery and banished from their home --and not really understanding what just happened -----fear ---anxiety ---Feeling Shame and Guilt ----a sense of loss of their peace and harmony and their home gone ----they learned quickly what God meant by them dying if they disobeyed Him -------
 
I still believe the story is a coming of age story. I am unable to buy the original sin story, but I am also unable to buy the atonement story.
 
I still believe the story is a coming of age story. I am unable to buy the original sin story, but I am also unable to buy the atonement story.

Unless ... for the purpose of atonement one buys into the indulgence theory and sacrifices the soul ... being the organ of knowledge and process ... something is missing ... like that void in Yosemite Sam's gut ...

Does answer the question about that internalized rumination ... Cana Ba'aL? The valley of question ...
 
I still believe the story is a coming of age story. I am unable to buy the original sin story, but I am also unable to buy the atonement story.

Or an allegory for humanity's rise into greater self-consciousness, rooted in an ancient oral history.

For whom is nakedness evil? Nakedness is often inconvenient due to climate, but Sapiens seems to have arisen in the fertile crescent, where nakedness is more likely than in the Great White North.
 
And no, I completely don't get "original sin", "magical seed" (who has been reading fantasy recently?) or atonement.

Atonement means to me "at-one-ment". The development in a soul of a closer affinity to divinity...

If nothing sickened, suffered and died, there would be no "Circle of Life". And that is completely counter to the reality of Gaia and the Universe.
 
The Atonement for Sin ----I personally THINK it could have started with Adam and Eve in the Garden ---For God to make the Clothes an animal had to be killed so Blood was shed ----was it shed to cover their Sin ?--so God could continue to be involved with them ------

Genesis 3:21 GWT
21 The Lord God made clothes from animal skins for the man and his wife and dressed them.

I am not the only one who thinks this ------Read all for Yourselves --I am just posting these parts


Benson Commentary
Genesis 3:21. Unto Adam and his wife did God make — By his own word, or by the ministry of angels; coats of skins — Of beasts slain, either to show them what death is, or rather, as is more probable, in sacrifice to God, to prefigure the great sacrifice which, in the latter days, should be offered once for all.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

The beasts, from whose skins they were clothed, it is supposed were slain, not for man's food, but for sacrifice, to typify Christ, the great Sacrifice.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
21. God made coats of skins—taught them to make these for themselves. This implies the institution of animal sacrifice, which was undoubtedly of divine appointment, and instruction in the only acceptable mode of worship for sinful creatures, through faith in a Redeemer (Heb 9:22).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People don't have to believe in the atonement theology but that does not make it void -----God has put it in place and He gave us free will to choose to believe it or not ------

The real truth is --that the people who do not believe in the shedding of blood for remission of their sins will find out the Spiritual truth of it when they die --- :angel:
 
The real truth is --that the people who do not believe in the shedding of blood for remission of their sins will find out the Spiritual truth of it when they die --- :angel:

Again, unsafe, threatening, not conversing. Can you try a little harder, please?

So, to summarize, you believe that until a person named Jesus was born, that "blood sacrifice" of animals "saved humans"? Or not.

And then, God, having wiped out the covenant that God made with Judaism, replaces it with a new covenant that says "you must believe that Jesus is the Literal Son of God, Needs Worshipping, Must be Believed In, A LA fundamentalist/unsafe/ beliefs." And will go to Hell otherwise. *sigh*
 
Only threatening to you -------I speak the truth ------

BetteTheRed ----you said ----- that "blood sacrifice" of animals "saved humans"?

I say ------No the Blood sacrifice of animals could not save humans ---it covered their sin only for a time so God could continue to be in the lives of the people -----

read all here ---I only posted this part -----your choice believe it or not ------makes no difference to me if you choose not to believe it -----


God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain’s was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel’s was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).
 
Back
Top