Adam and Eve

Kristen

.

Edited by - Kristen on 31 August 2000 22:0:49

Edited by - Kristen on 18 September 2000 14:11:59

your so right, kristen. I have the same thoughts many times. First he create man with a free will, and when they use that will, they got punished.
How much less painfull for all the generations it would have been, if God just take away Adam and Eve and create new humans. Or if he would have created them with a programm, that sin against him is not possible, but in other things they still can decide themself...lots of staff to think about...
MGM who doubt about the existence of Adam and Eve

Seven

Kristen and mgm, I look at what we were taught about Adam and Eve and the book of Genesis as our introduction to knowledge of a creating God. Without it what knowledge would we have had about the beginnings of our universe? I can't be sure of the specific details of it but I've often thought if I can't believe what's written here in this first book-then I might as well put the Bible
down, because how can I truly believe anything else written in these pages?
*
I wrote this quote by H. Mears in my journal, and it sums up my feelings about origins:

Genesis is the record of human failure, first in an ideal environment(Eden), then under the rule of conscience(from the Fall to the deluge)and finally under patriarchal rule(Noah to Joseph). In
every case of human failure, however, God met human need with marvelous promises of sovereign grace. It is therefore fitting that the Bible's first book should show us the failure of humanity under every condition met by the salvation of God.

seven

Simon

I think the whole thing of 'leaving mankind to it to prove that he can't rule himself' argument is pretty flawed as well.
Acording to the bible, mankind seemed to be getting along pretty well, all united and stuff until Jehovah mixed up the languages thus causing divisions and eventually nationalism. Is this any kind of fair test ?
Again, the bible records continuing interferance in human affairs and manipulation of people and history which I would argue would make claim that there was evidence that man couldn't rule himself inadmissable.
Not least of all, Satan and his demons were apparently cast down to earth. Gee, thanks a lot God.
If Jehovah iis so loving and forgiving, why couldn't he just have forgiven Adam and Eve or at least their children?
It sounds more like a story to explain where we come from told by scientifically ignorant and superstitious people who had no better explanation.

Seven

Good post, Simon. Answers to scientific questions cannot be found in the Bible, and answers concerning God can't be found in the scientific community. The thread you started in the humor forum about life elsewhere in the universe, would be an interesting topic to discuss here.seven

Zep

Q.What were the first words Adam said to Eve?

A.Stand back, i dont know how big this thing gets!

Seven

Oh, maybe that was why Eve's first words to Adam weren't words at all-just hysterical laughter.

Frenchy

This post (the one forthcoming) is too long, I know. But this question of Kristen's is important to me and perhaps to others as well and I hope that you will forgive this long-winded reply. I'll break it up into four replies.
First of all I take my knight's helmet off and bow low to Seven for her very formidable comeback to Zep's comment! Well done, fair lady!
---------

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Edited by - Frenchy on 20 August 2000 11:41:51

Frenchy

“I OFTEN THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT AS JW'S ABOUT ADAM AND EVE. ”-KRISTEN
I’m glad that someone finally brought this up. To me it’s the most intriguing account in the Bible and perhaps THE key to understanding our whole purpose and existence. I would like to state at the outset that I don’t know more than anyone else about this subject and that all of my opinions are just that. Here is how I have reasoned on the matter.
To begin with – (1) I’m not one to quickly doubt a Biblical account because it seems rather strange or seeming contradictory with history or science. History and science change. (2) I am not one that is quick to charge that a scripture or passage is speaking metaphorically because it does not fit into what I believe at the moment or because it’s difficult to accept it literally. With that out of the way….
As has been pointed out by many astute Bible students and scholars, the chronology of the Bible (approx 6,000 years of man’s existence) is not consistent with modern scientific evaluation of the age of humanity. (See 1 above) Several explanations have been offered for the seeming discrepancy in an effort to maintain the literalness of the account. None seem to be ideal (perhaps someone here knows of one that is). That aside, there are other details that, upon close examination, are very interesting as well.
The account is broken up. If you read Genesis 1:1 –2:3 it will appear as a fairly straightforward and consistent account. When you get to the fourth verse of the second chapter however, the account seems to start over. Reading verses 7 and 8 will tell you something else very interesting. Man was created BEFORE the garden of Eden. Where did the man live while the garden was being created? The garden was ‘toward the east’ , east of what?
Now, here comes the really interesting part.

Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. --Ge 2:9

Two very special trees. Both in the middle of the garden. (ge 3:3) (The account so far has been conspicuously vague about the location of the garden {‘toward the east’} but now we have some detail about the location of the four rivers that stem from the river in the garden and yet…we still can’t pinpoint it’s location. Strange.) Now, about those two trees. Ge 2: 15 repeats what is stated in Ge 2:8, namely that the man is placed in the garden. Next comes the famous, first ‘thou shalt not’ that is recorded in the Bible:

And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” --Ge 2: 16-17

Please note that the prohibition is for ONE of the special trees. No mention is made here of the ‘tree of life’.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Frenchy

Part 2--
--------
Also, when the serpent approached Eve with his infamous invitation, he asked her “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden? (NWT; NKJV;KJV)” Now some translations (NIV;NRSV;ASV) render the verse this way: “…You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”, suggesting that the serpent was under the impression that all the trees were forbidden to them. In either case, Eve was put in a position to state exactly what it was that was forbidden to them. This is what she said: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; (NRSV)” With that established she goes on to tell the serpent of the one prohibition that they have: “but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die” –NRSV Either Adam or Eve apparently added that “nor shall you touch it” because God is not recorded as having said this to Adam in Ge 2:17. Anyway, the point is that Eve made it clear that they could eat of ANY fruit tree in the garden EXCEPT ‘the tree of knowledge of good and bad’. Were they then eating from the ‘tree of life’? Some have suggested that they were perhaps eating from this tree on a regular basis, maybe even daily. The account gives no prohibition against eating from it. Eve made it plain that there was ONE tree denied to them. (The society contends that the couple would have been allowed to eat from the tree later on after the ‘test’ was completed) In this case some have suggested that the ‘tree of life’ was really a symbol of Christ (in the same manner as, for instance, the manna in the wilderness {John 6: 48,49} who was to come and become life-giver to all.
HOWEVER (BIG HOWEVER here!) IF (Big IF!) that is the case then it would mean that the provision for the messiah had been made PRIOR to the fall of man, suggesting that God knew what would happen and therefore the whole snake, Eve, fruit thing was not a test at all but merely a scenario, full of symbols, (See 2 above) depicting the inevitable. Genesis never calls it a test.
However, suggesting that the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve account is symbolic creates as many problems as taking it literally. There are the genealogies that go back to Adam, for instance, that have to be dealt with. There are also the reasonings of Paul, for example, in the fifteenth chapter of Romans that have to be dealt with. There are Jesus’ inferences to the garden such as in his comments on divorce. (Matt 5:31; 19:4;Mark 10:6) There are others as well. Some have attempted to explain these things in such a way as to allow for the figurative explanation of the garden of Eden account. I have even heard one explanation that is sort of a combination of both the literal and figurative views.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Edited by - Frenchy on 20 August 2000 11:48:43

Adam and Eve

Share this