 |
I truly believe that Adam and Eve didn't physically pick an apple off a tree and eat it, it's symbolic. And, what really happened was the serpent beguiled them into sex and so then they figured out they were naked. Am I the only one? I have a hard time finding people who were taught this way,too.
I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home and was never taught that it was an apple or the sex-beguiling thing. If that was someone's teaching, that someone tweaked the story as they wanted to in order to mess with someone else's head. A careful reading of the first three chapters of Genesis refutes that.
Some churches interpret the Adam and Eve story as literal. Other churches say it's just a story that teaches a lesson.
The apple could have more likely been a fig from everything I was taught.
Like, for one thing, if they were near apple trees why did they cover themselves with fig leaves WHEN they 'saw they were naked'?
People say apple simply because it is appealing to the eye and taste.
Genesis 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (no mention of apple)
1 john 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
Between Two Worlds: Powlison on Lusts of the Flesh: Question 1
Adam and Eve very well were having sex before they "knew they were naked". Sex was not the sin or a sin with them since God DID create them as man and woman for each other.
Their eyes open and saw they were naked simply means they then KNEW things like embarrassment and their sinlessness nature was no longer existent.
Sex was taught by many religious people to be sinful and dirty even in marriage but the Bible never taught it was sin within marriage.
I think people focus too much on the fruit anyway. The fruit is not the point whether it was truly a fruit or whether it was symbolic. Some people wonder what was so bad about eating a piece of fruit. "Come on it was just a piece of fruit." The fruit is not the point, the point was disobeying God.
Nobody's going to tempt ME to eat a fig leaf!Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Not a fig leaf > a fig
Need to edit:D
OMG! Thank you! Aren't they poisonous?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Hey! That would be a great interpretation of the story! The fig leaf that Adam and Eve ate poisoned all of mankind foreverafter.
First as I believe was noted the bible no where says it was an apple, merely a fruit. But no, sex would have been a natural ( not a sin or a dirty act) it was merely a part of nature created by God for all animals and man and even reproduction of plants and all.
No where did it way that reproduction was evil or some sin, ( that sounds like like too many years of catholic school)
In fact I fully believe that they had children prior to being sent out of the garden but it was not mentioned since it had no effect on the story of creation and the sin of mankind. My reason for that was part of the punishment was for eve to have pain in child birth, not much of a punishment if she had not known no pain in child birth before.
But as noted it was an act of disobeying God. And that action allowed adam and eve to know what sin was, and with sin, guilt and with guilt shame.
There are meny things about gen. that is said to be one way and is not. Was adam created in the garden or was he created and placed into the garden. Where there two sets of people. Gen5 .god created them male and female he created them in our likeness. Then he sleeps and on the 8th day he created adam. What of enock. What about the nefelm. Didn't Jesus free one of legion. There are meny terifing things in the bible. Who did cain have children with in the land of nod.
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. Gen. 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by wayne0418
On the 7th day God rested, so he must have created Adam on the 6th day.Quote:
on the 8th day he created adam
What about Enoch?Quote:
what of enock
You mean the Nephi? That's in the Book of Mormon.Quote:
what about the nefelm
Please give a reference.Quote:
didn't Jesus free one of legion.
Genesis doesn't tell us EVERYthing. We don't know Cain's children's names either.Quote:
who did cain have children with in the land of nod.
Where did the land of Nod come from? Who lived in it?
I think he means the NephilimQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Notes on the Nephilim: The Giants of Old
Normally, I try to stay out of these things. But the total illogic of this question prompted me to respond. How can you truly believe that the apple was symbolic but the serpent was not?Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalisa123
The whole story is symbolism, In my opinion. It seeks to explain how sin and evil came to be in the world. God, in his beneficence, created an idyllic setting for his creations. But he laid down certain rules. Because Eve defied those rules, man lost the idyliic setting. The lesson of Adam and Eve is simply that defying God doesn't pay. The fine points if the story matter not. At least that's my opinion, You can disagree, rake me over the coals or whatever, but there is no hard and fast proof one way or the other.
Oh and by the way. This has nothing to do with Christianity directly. The story of Adam and Eve is from Genesis the first book of the OLD Testament. The Old Testament is part of Judaism, Chrsitianity AND Islam.
Yeah, it does. It's the whole reason for Jesus' appearance in the NT. Check Gen. 3:15.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring [1] and her offspring;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise his heel.”
What does that have to do with Jesus?
But again I say that it has nothing DIRECTLY to do with Christianity. This is part of the Old Testament and is therefore universal to all three major religions that stem from the Old Testament. Whether any part of Genesis refers to the coming of a messiah or not doesn't change the fact that the Book of Genesis is common to all three.
According to most Protestant denominations, Gen. 3:15 is the first promise of the Savior, God making a way out for the mess Adam and Eve had caused.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
"The Lord God said to the serpent..."I will put enmity between your seed [Satan] and her seed [Eve's descendant, Jesus]; he [Jesus] shall bruise your [Satan's] head, and you [Satan] shall bruise his [Jesus'] heel."
I love these types of debates and questions. It promotes us all to think of God and our beginning. There are many stores. Adam with another woman in some belifes. The issues of relationship. Where did we come from. It is amazing. Gen. is a story passed down thrue the jewes traditions. I don't know about islam. And christian. Some say that if you look at the part where they (Moses) refused to kill the inhabitins of the promise land is where the islam faith came from. The lovers of Bal. christians are jews that believe the mesiah has come. Sorry about the spelling. Yes it was the Nephilim. From gen. What I meant about Enoch was is he the first emortel. For he walked with God and was no more. Did not say died. Every one else seas died. And there is outhers. About the blood line of cain it is almost as well documented as the blood line of sethh. Even saying that music , blacksmithing and many more things came from them. About the fruit. As trans lations have come and gone I believe the original text red fruit. Not fig or apple. The fruit of good and evil. But it is a cech 22 if she did not eat of the fruit then she would not know that what she did was wrong. God merly said fruit bad don't tuch. How meny of us can get away with that with our own children or our self.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
And in the name of the religions that each took their own direction after that explanation, so much hatred to others has followed that it seems that the world would have been better served to realize that man's animalistic nature makes him want things his way at the expense of others... as in survival of the fittest. But then evolution is probably a dirty word in this discussion. Funny how even religions experience an evolution process.
That's an awful lot of filling in the blanks that may not even exist. But even conceding that the connection might be accurate. Genesis is part of the Old Testament which makes it applicable to all three of the big 3 religions, not just Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Those are the blanks that Protestantism fills in in the way I described. The Catholic Church interprets it the same way: CATHOLIC BIBLE: Genesis 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Throughout the OT are similar promises of the Savior that are handed down from one generation to another--thus all the turmoil, such as Jacob stealing Esau's birthright, and the lineages of Jesus that at the beginning of the NT.
If you ever have an opportunity, please take an overview course of the Bible to see how the two testaments fit together and how the entire Bible has one big message: Jesus Christ and his two commandments to love God and love one another.
I never said Genesis is not applicable to those three religions. I was telling you what the Adam and Eve story, and that verse in particular, means to Christianity.
You are missing my point. I'm not, in any way, disputing the connection of the Old Testament to the New. Or saying that the story of Adam and Eve has no bearing on Christianity.
What I'm saying is, since the Old Testament is common to Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, that any question or discussion of Adam and Eve is not specific to any one of those religions. That is a point of fact, not subject interpretation or opinion.
Yes, ScottGem. You are correct.
But you did say the above which got my juices up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
This is in response to Wondergirl's "filling in the blanks" as ScottGem puts it. Wondergirl, you say that Protestantism teaches that Genesis 3:15 is the first mention of the Savior. I am Lutheran, one branch of Protestantism, and have never been taught that. Like ScottGem, I see nothing about the Savior in that first. Of course there are hints of the Savior in the OT but I also don't find them in that verse. Maybe you can tell us specifically which branch of Protestantism you are referring to, as there are many.
It actually is in symbolism between Adam and Christ, but you are correct it is not used in all branches of Christianity. And as you say Lutheran, there are seveal types of Lutherans from Mo Synd, WI Wynd, American Luterhan and a dozen more. Each one has very specific teachings.
And sadly I know in the Mo Synd, most of its members know little about a lot of its real teachings sadly. So much of Luthers teaching are never talked about much.
I was born Lutheran, my father was a Lutheran minister, I attended a Lutheran college and took a number of doctrine courses, and have always been taught that Gen. 3:15 means exactly that, no matter which congregation I belonged to and who was the minister. Please check with your pastor.Quote:
Originally Posted by blondiechika05
If you call pastors who are in each synod, I'm betting you will find out they agree about Gen. 3:15.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Why on earth do you say Luther's teachings are never talked about much? His disagreement with the Catholic Church is the foundation of the Reformation and the basis of what you believe if you are Protestant.
This is grate! The fact is every religion ties into adam and eve. Because it is fact. We have people that read the bible and love God. We each see the meseg that God wants us to see at the level of understanding at wich we are. I read a story from the bible to my dauter(6) and she sees what is at her level of understanding when I look at the same storry I may see something different. But it is beautiful to see God true the eyes of a child. Some say that God only brote hate and anger to this world fighting and killing over one name or the outher. There types of people in this world thouse that can hold strong to there faith and learn and become inriched, and thouse that say that there is no more to a subject matter and become violent when they here things that does not conform with the abc programing in there head. It is amazing that hear on a question and answer bord we all love to grow and become more.
I agree with you wondergirl but I was never taught about Gen 3:15 in the churches when I was growing up. I realized that and how Christianity prevalent is to and in the Old Testament when I accepted Jesus in my 20's and read it for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But as Wayne says some are content at where they are with their understanding. But too that can be good because sometimes it takes a child's eyes to see things we often over look.
The Old Testament is full of stories of people failing and God forgiving. In effect, the NT Gospel is very much a part of the OT Law, and is always the better way to live--our being bound by Love and not by Rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Throughout the OT is the birthright thing, the oldest son inheriting the family fortune PLUS the promise that the hoped-for Savior (first promised in Gen. 3) will come through his lineage. Isaiah is especially full of prophecies of this Savior who will restore the Jewish nation. Unfortunately, many of the Jews both in the OT and in the New believed the Savior was going to be a political figure who would free the nation from the Romans or whoever their captors were and establish them in the land that God had promised to Abram in Gen. 12. The Jews are still waiting for their Savior; the Christians believe he has come, and not for political purposes.
Yes, it does when one reads the entire Bible with logic and reason and common sense and openmindedness.Quote:
Originally Posted by desidario
Organized religion does not equal Christianity. Christianity does not equal organized religion.
Again I ask, what did your reading of the Bible from cover to cover tell you about Christianity?
Are you saying myth to everything but the punishments or do you say punishment is a myth too?Quote:
Originally Posted by desidario
Why do you claim mankind out of dirt is a myth when science has proven humans are made of the same DNA as dirt?
One does not have to take the Adam and Eve story literally in order to find a moral. Aesop's Fables offer real-life morals that you can take to the bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by desidario
Have to spread the rep
Yeah either way true or symbolic the message is the same. Man messed up went against God...
I think you missed the point of the discussion. There is no contention about being fruitful and procreation.Quote:
Originally Posted by waterlilly
Point being the fruit and the serpent literal or figurative...
Procreation being literal is a given
I think it could be both literal and symbolic. I believe Adam and Eve went against God's commands, and I think that the LORD uses symbolism in the Bible.
The Bible is rife with symbolism -- e.g. "the hills clapped their hands" and "the four corners of the earth".
I don't know much about Adam and Eve, but I do know that dirt isn't made of DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I always hear atheists say that bananas, monkeys, humans and dirt all share the same dna to try and prove that man evolved from amoebas to monkeys to humans or whatever it is they believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Isn't dirt formed by the decay of living organisms? It's called decomposition or some would say composting... No, not all dirt forms that way, but mix it up a bit and its not hard to understand that dirt does have the potential to contain the DNA in cells... That logic doesn't really prove much. If you look for the building blocks of DNA in soil, want to wager as to what you will find?
On the other hand,
"There is nothing symbolic it is literal" seems opinionated. All of the various versions of religious texts seem to have been "given" to some man to share with the rest of the world. If someone today were to write such a book and tell the world it was all based on things that God told them, how many believers would there be?
Oh, lets not forget that the book should say that awful things will happen to those who don't believe, and that it will be acceptable to do awful things to others who don't believe the same way.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:37 PM. |