The story of Adam and Eve is a paradox...

I've been thinking of this recently. As the story goes, Adam and Eve were told by God to NOT eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". A serpent tempts Eve and she eats it, her eyes are opened, and she is now "a sinner". However, how could she have sinned if she didn't know what it was to "be disobedient" in the first place? It wouldn't be something that would even make sense to her, right? Now, if she already had this knowledge, which seems to be the case, or she would not have even known what it meant TO "sin", that would mean that the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" wasn't even necessary. It's seems to me to be a "chicken and the egg" paradox.

Any other thoughts?

The writers of the A&E story needed a plot. So this tree and the snake just sort of magically pop up into the story. But we know that God could have been the only character that would have allowed that to happen. In fact, God created the Tree and the Serpent.

It would seem that God wanted A&E to disobey. Perhaps YHWH was getting bored and wanted a little excitement. You know the story:

On the first day God created the Heavens, and then he rested;

On the second day God created the Earth, and the he rested:

On the third day God created man, and then he rested;

On the fourth day God created woman, and since that day neither God nor man has rested!

Very funny. My gods are about to rest just fine. It must be a Christian problem.

In the ancient world and other cultures, the snake was a symbol of wisdom. (It burrowed in the earth, ie. could serve as a messenger between the Underworld and ours.) So the snake was the obvious thing to use in the story. Everyone would understand it. It offered wisdom.

I wish one of our Jewish friends was here to tell you how they interpret the myth. It is different. There are also the Kabbalahists.

I would very much like to hear what they had to say on this!

The story is so weird, yet many Christians just don't see where the problem lies, if this was supposed to be literal. The serpent/snake was never "Satan", and it is called "one of the beast of the field". At most "Satan" would have possessed it, . . . but afterwards, why punish the possessed creature, as if it had something to do with it? It looses its appendages. Actually, it comes to be a much more stealthy hunter, due to that, but that's another story.

Furthermore, . . . . I don't believe that "Satan" actually lied. At least in HIS point of view. As he saw it, just because they "ate the fruit", they weren't going to die on that day. From HIS point of view, they were in the Garden of Eden, WITH the "tree of life". I doubt he would have been aware of them (A&E) being removed from the garden, so their presence there, and their ingesting of the "tree of life" meant their continued immortal status.

Also, their "sin" wasn't the cause of them beginning to die, . . . but removal from that "power source". If they had remained there, they would have continued to live forever, and it is God who removes them BECAUSE of this fact. . . . . which really makes no sense, since Christianity states that the soul lives forever anyway.

Furthermore, if they had NEVER sinned, yet were removed from this "power source" (the "tree of life"), then it is logical to assume that they would have eventually died, sinless.

Of course, I'm just applying my own logic to this myth . . . there I said it, . . . MYTH.

Yay! He said myth!

That's step one in Recovering Fanatics Anonymous.

It is a Christian myth and it is looked upon by people outside the religion in the same way that many Christians look at Greek myths. Outside of the culture and the time frame, the significance shifts. Sometimes the meaning is lost.

True. Time tends to muddy up all sorts of things through its passing. It still amazes me that someone can look at this story as something that literally took place about 6,000 years ago.

Many Christians don't. Don't you think the schism in Christianity those who look upon the myths as representing deeper many varied truths and the camp where they take the bible literally is widening? It is a changing world and possibly indicative of people who need something firm, like written words that don't change, to hold on to. Has the modern world become too complicated and confusing for some people?

When this topic is discussed on any of the purely christian forum boards, most take the side of it being a completely literal story. Maybe, it is the case where mostly fundamentalistic christians post on THOSE type of boards and the more liberal ones post on Belief.net or on here. I may be seeing this topic only from that side of the isle, along with the fundy church I go to.

I hope that more people come over to the side of seeing it as a story only.

DeavonReye wrote:I've been thinking of this recently. As the story goes, Adam and Eve were told by God to NOT eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". A serpent tempts Eve and she eats it, her eyes are opened, and she is now "a sinner". However, how could she have sinned if she didn't know what it was to "be disobedient" in the first place? It wouldn't be something that would even make sense to her, right? Now, if she already had this knowledge, which seems to be the case, or she would not have even known what it meant TO "sin", that would mean that the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" wasn't even necessary. It's seems to me to be a "chicken and the egg" paradox.

Any other thoughts?

You'll like this story:
Issues with Adam, Eve and the Tree of Knowledge.

An interesting link. Thanks for posting it.