Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Disagreement with Genesis Original Sin concept

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» Disagreement with Genesis Original Sin concept

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Greetings to all...

For a long time I have had a difficulty with the notion of what constituted the "Original Sin" as described in the book of Genesis.

Quoting from the KJV:

Genesis 2:9

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:16,17

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:2-7

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And 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.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Ok.. So, the "original sin" is that Adam & Eve defied God and ate from the tree that God forbid them to eat from, right?

Wrong.

Here's why:

The tree is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to eating from it, A&E had no knowledge of good or evil. It was only after they ate from it that they realized they'd done something wrong.

My argument is that: if one has no knowledge of good nor evil, then any act one does cannot be considered "good" or "evil" - it is neutral in the context of one's knowledge.

For example, if a one-year-old baby finds a Zippo lighter laying around and manages to set the house on fire, this cannot be considered an "evil" act because there was no intention of doing evil. On the other hand, a teenager - who knows what a lighter is and the danger of fire - who deliberately (not accidentally) lights the house on fire has committed an evil act because they knew what they were doing.

Since A&E had no conception of good nor evil, they couldn't possibly know that it was wrong to disobey God. How would they?

Therefore, disobeying God by eating from the tree was not an "evil" act and, therefore, cannot be considered the "Original Sin".

If anybody has any insight into the conundrum, I'd love to hear it. I've brought this up to several people over the years and have yet to find an exception to logic that I can agree with.

-ITL-

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;107749 wrote:

Greetings to all...

For a long time I have had a difficulty with the notion of what constituted the "Original Sin" as described in the book of Genesis.

Quoting from the KJV:

Genesis 2:9

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:16,17

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:2-7

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And 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.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Ok.. So, the "original sin" is that Adam & Eve defied God and ate from the tree that God forbid them to eat from, right?

Wrong.

Here's why:

The tree is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to eating from it, A&E had no knowledge of good or evil. It was only after they ate from it that they realized they'd done something wrong.

My argument is that: if one has no knowledge of good nor evil, then any act one does cannot be considered "good" or "evil" - it is neutral in the context of one's knowledge.

For example, if a one-year-old baby finds a Zippo lighter laying around and manages to set the house on fire, this cannot be considered an "evil" act because there was no intention of doing evil. On the other hand, a teenager - who knows what a lighter is and the danger of fire - who deliberately (not accidentally) lights the house on fire has committed an evil act because they knew what they were doing.

Since A&E had no conception of good nor evil, they couldn't possibly know that it was wrong to disobey God. How would they?

Therefore, disobeying God by eating from the tree was not an "evil" act and, therefore, cannot be considered the "Original Sin".

If anybody has any insight into the conundrum, I'd love to hear it. I've brought this up to several people over the years and have yet to find an exception to logic that I can agree with.

-ITL-

I know you won't believe this, but you can do an evil unintentionally, where "evil" just means a very bad thing to do. The baby did a bad thing. Not morally bad, of course, but something that was harmful and dangerous. A person can do something good unintentionally. So why can't he do something bad unintentionally? But it seems you have a "fix" that the term "evil" can be used only of an intentionally bad action. And, consequently, there is no way out of the conundrum for you. You have zipped yourself in.

@IntoTheLight,

One matter that might have to be considered is, that of the scope of our investigation. Are we only looking at Genesis here? or are we comparing, and interpreting that in light of all the theology which comes afterward?

Of course, once again, we'll have to pay at least some attention to the Hebrew wording, as well. (will do that later, since I don't have the time at the moment...) The word which we are assigning our English 'sin' to, is a matter of missing the mark of a standard. As far as I can recall, that word does not come up in that story.

We can see traces of an understanding, from much later works (especially some earlier Christian works), that it became somewhat (at the very least) common to see Adam's having disobeyed YHWH, as having been that 'missing the standard of obedience to YHWH' (otherwise termed 'sin') If my memory serves me well, the RCC's adoption of this 'original sin,' was something along the lines of having copulated with Eve? was it?

At any rate, I am pretty sure we'd find that it would be wrong to think of the story as having been designed to give the immediate and direct audience the idea that any other thing other than having not obeyed YHWH, was the error of those two. (and recall that some Christian voices in the first century seemed to have wanted to pin it on the female [and extend that to an 'at large' degree].)

@IntoTheLight,

Not much time but things to consider.
The story is in the first book of the Jewish Bible. It is a Jewish story.
It has never been understood as a story about original sin or sex in the Jewish traditon.
It is a story about alienation and separation from god about breaking the law.
There was some discussion about man originally being immortal and becoming mortal after being cast out from Eden since they did not die immediately when they ate the fruit.
The "original sin" interpretation comes out of the Chrisitan tradition about 300 years after the death of Jesus as Christians poured over and reinterpreted the old testament (Jewish Bible) in light of Chrisitan theology Creation, Fall, Redemption. The Fall being original sin and the Redemption being the coming of Christ. I usually prefer the Jewish interpretation of Jewish stories.

@prothero,

prothero;107814 wrote:

Not much time but things to consider.
The story is in the first book of the Jewish Bible. It is a Jewish story.
It has never been understood as a story about original sin or sex in the Jewish traditon.
It is a story about alienation and separation from god about breaking the law.
There was some discussion about man originally being immortal and becoming mortal after being cast out from Eden since they did not die immediately when they ate the fruit.
The "original sin" interpretation comes out of the Chrisitan tradition about 300 years after the death of Jesus as Christians poured over and reinterpreted the old testament (Jewish Bible) in light of Chrisitan theology Creation, Fall, Redemption. The Fall being original sin and the Redemption being the coming of Christ. I usually prefer the Jewish interpretation of Jewish stories.

Unless you simply assume that all evil must be intentional, there is no problem.

@IntoTheLight,

I find it interesting ITL that you are only focusing on the good & evil part when there are so many other things wrong with the story.

My question is, why did god put the stupid tree there in the first place?

Think about it. I have made a metaphor before to describe how silly it is for god to place the tree there in the first place. Let's say you run a daycare for children and in your backyard you have dug a deep pit and covered it with sticks and grass to blend in with the rest of the yard. You then allow the children to play freely in that yard knowing that eventually one or more will ultimately fall into the pit that YOU put there.

So the arguments I get in rebuttal to this parallel is god being like a parent and wanting its children to avoid dangers. So even though god put the pit there it was an attempt to teach it. But that reasoning fails too, why? Because parents would love to get rid of the dangers in the world so their child will never have to face them. But since human parents are powerless to get rid of dangers, they only have one option and that is to warn-teach their child to avoid it.

So was god powerless to the placement of the tree? He never intended for the tree to be accessible by them? Why did he not foresee that they would eat of it anyways regardless of what god told them? Perhaps it was his plan all along for them to disobey, and he intentionally set them up to fail.

If I would have been god, I wouldn't have placed the danger of the tree where they could have access to it.

@IntoTheLight,

Krumple wrote:

If I would have been god, I wouldn't have placed the danger of the tree where they could have access to it.

It was intended to give them choice, a choice between, evidently, choosing the good path or the bad path. At least that's how the story is told, I think.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;107830 wrote:

It was intended to give them choice, a choice between, evidently, choosing the good path or the bad path. At least that's how the story is told, I think.

I object.

Using ITL's own reflection here, that choice couldn't be made realisticly because they didn't know prior to their acting.

Remember my metaphor? Like children playing in a yard careless, unknowingly they fall into the pit YOU dug. Is that really a choice? If you are unaware of the option to chose?

I think them even being told not to partake of the tree, was in fact an invitation to partake. Anyone who has kids would clearly understand that what you tell your kids is often an invitation for them to do it. Sorta like planting the thought in their head prior to it being there as if had you NOT said anything about it, they might not even considered it.

The TRUE choice in my opinion, would have been saying nothing at all. Letting the tree be, and seeing just what they would do.

@IntoTheLight,

Krumple wrote:

I think them even being told not to partake of the tree, was in fact an invitation to partake. Anyone who has kids would clearly understand that what you tell your kids is often an invitation for them to do it.

According to the story, these two people were not children.

If a woman said to a man, "Don't rape me", and the man raped her, you are saying the woman was actually giving the man an invitation to rape her? Have fun trying to prove that in court Smile

Quote:

The TRUE choice in my opinion, would have been saying nothing at all. Letting the tree be, and seeing just what they would do.

Eh, whether or not the choice was "TRUE" or not, doesn't matter. It was still a choice. They weren't forced to choose either way, even if they desired the tree more after God said don't touch it. We can still make our own choices, despite influence, can't we?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107816 wrote:

Unless you simply assume that all evil must be intentional, there is no problem.

I do not remember anyone mentioning "evil" or "intention" but the problem is not just "sin" but "original sin". The notion that Adam's sin is passed down to every subsequent generation such that the natural state of man is sin (fallen from grace). This notion subsequently leads to such absurd doctrines as that unbaptised infants go to limbo or purgatory not to heaven. That dying without absolution of sins (last rites) results in exclusion from heaven, etc. That salvation can only be obtained through Christ and through the Church excluding all other faiths and all other traditions.

The other problem is the notion that "original sin" involves sex or sexuality between adam and eve and that eve is primarily at fault (led adam astray) resulting in centuries of the deeming of sex and of woman.

None of these original sin notions or notions about women and sex are found in the Jewish tradition which is curious because the story is from the Jewish Bible and was "originally" a Jewish not a Christian story.
So there is still a problem not just "sin", intention or evil but "original sin".

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;107796 wrote:

One matter that might have to be considered is, that of the scope of our investigation. Are we only looking at Genesis here? or are we comparing, and interpreting that in light of all the theology which comes afterward?

I was looking strictly at Genesis and the concept of original sin, which is largely a RCC / Lutheran belief that has been adopted by many Protestant schools as well.

Quote:

Of course, once again, we'll have to pay at least some attention to the Hebrew wording, as well. (will do that later, since I don't have the time at the moment...) The word which we are assigning our English 'sin' to, is a matter of missing the mark of a standard. As far as I can recall, that word does not come up in that story.

You're quite correct. The word "sin" is not used in the story. You make a good point about the original language, however, I'd prefer not to break it down into the Hebrew simply because I"m trying to address the RCC conception. The RCC likely doesn't acknowledge the original Hebrew so I'm trying to keep the conversation on-topic by limiting to the interpretation used by the RCC, rather than the apparent original meaning.

Quote:

We can see traces of an understanding, from much later works (especially some earlier Christian works), that it became somewhat (at the very least) common to see Adam's having disobeyed YHWH, as having been that 'missing the standard of obedience to YHWH' (otherwise termed 'sin')

Yes, that is what is alluded to in the RCC conceptualization.

Quote:

If my memory serves me well, the RCC's adoption of this 'original sin,' was something along the lines of having copulated with Eve? was it?

No, I don't think so. Or at least I have never heard that before from anyone. I don't see how that could be the case as God (in Genesis) clearly intended for A&E to reproduce.

Quote:

At any rate, I am pretty sure we'd find that it would be wrong to think of the story as having been designed to give the immediate and direct audience the idea that any other thing other than having not obeyed YHWH, was the error of those two.

That follows.

Quote:

(and recall that some Christian voices in the first century seemed to have wanted to pin it on the female [and extend that to an 'at large' degree].)

LOL! Certainly they did and it's an unfortunate trend that was carried on by many famous Christian Theologians, namely Tertullian, Martin Luther, and even St. Augustine, among others.

-ITL-

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 04:05 PM ----------

prothero;107814 wrote:

The story is in the first book of the Jewish Bible. It is a Jewish story.
It has never been understood as a story about original sin or sex in the Jewish traditon.

Not to the Jews, but the Christians traditionally have a very different interpretation (one reason I posted it in the Christianity base).

Quote:

It is a story about alienation and separation from god about breaking the law.

The breaking of the law, though, is the foundation of the original sin argument.

Quote:

There was some discussion about man originally being immortal and becoming mortal after being cast out from Eden since they did not die immediately when they ate the fruit.

Of course. The words "thou shalt surely die" is often meant to imply that humanity would've been immortal until they ate the fruit. But that's not really the issue I'm bringing up. I'm saying that ignoring God's will was not "wrong" because A&E had no conception of what was wrong.

Quote:

The "original sin" interpretation comes out of the Chrisitan tradition about 300 years after the death of Jesus as Christians poured over and reinterpreted the old testament (Jewish Bible) in light of Chrisitan theology Creation, Fall, Redemption. The Fall being original sin and the Redemption being the coming of Christ. I usually prefer the Jewish interpretation of Jewish stories.

I prefer a Jewish interpretation usually, too, but I wanted to address this argument in terms of the Christian perspective.

-ITL-

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 04:08 PM ----------

prothero;107920 wrote:

posting to Kennethamy
I do not remember anyone mentioning "evil" or "intention" but the problem is not just "sin" but "original sin".

Trust Kennethamy to make rebuttals to arguments nobody made in the first place. -rolls eyes-

-ITL-

@IntoTheLight,

Yet please do not lose track, gentlemen, (and ladies?), of the most obvious fact that this document, and this portion of that document, while more likely intended to have been representative of factual historical events in the intention of the compilers of the later version of the several textual sources used for this scroll, could well have been simply symbolic in nature in the original creation of such a story.

There have been 'links' made between some of the underlying, thinkably symbolic meanings involved with this creation story and that of Gilgamesh. One symbolic line of thought may very well be that of the turn from hunter-gathering social groups, into land-owning agricultural city-nation social groups. In this line of thought, the story betrays the matter of the 'much-more-involved-in-nut-and-fruit-collecting' females spurred the adoption of land cultivation (agriculture) which 'forced' the male away from the 'much-more-involved-in' hunt-for-meat (the much longer practiced art & skill), to tilling the soil. The remnants of that possible folk tale, arguably may have been spread about a little, taken up in a number of symbolic belief-system data bases, and build on.

It is thus thinkable, actually, that the real seed of that portion of this creation story, while recounting the H. sapiens' shift from a pure hunter-gatherer social structure, to a non-nomadic agricultural social structure, is (in the environmental circumstance of a strong patriarchal society setting) putting the blame on the female for 'dethroning' the male from 'imagined position of respect for bringing home the bacon [in a most literal way]. In this line of thought, the story was not originally about right or wrong at all, simply a recount of events, upon which additional emotion embedding was added, upon which further (and much later) religious belief-system concepts were attached.

The above posts about the idea of the 'original sin' thing, are most certainly correct--it had not been a Jewish thing before 1 CE, nor even after that. Additionally, it is about obeying or not obeying--in that finally added addition (according to the theory I have mentioned herein).

EDIT: The post immediately above had come in while I had been writing this one. I agree with all the points made there, as they are most secure--other than a lingering question of the matter of this 'original sin' thing's not having been a sexual thing. It is most clear, as pointed out in your post IntoTheLight, that the Hebrew text does give clear intention of reproducing. One interesting thing there, actually, is that the mixing of the various sources to make the exemplar scroll which we have ended up with, there is some confusion on whether YHWH had considered a female human at first, or not. One source clear did not provide that inclusion--as our first, and sole human (Adam) was brought all the non-human creatures to see which one would be a helper/companion for him...hee, hee, hee.......(and yet YHWH despised bestiality?)

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;107749 wrote:

Therefore, disobeying God by eating from the tree was not an "evil" act and, therefore, cannot be considered the "Original Sin".

You forget one thing. It's true, they had no knowledge of good and evil, EXCEPT the knowledge that eating from the tree was wrong because God revealed this to them. They had knowledge of that one rule.

@prothero,

prothero;107920 wrote:

I do not remember anyone mentioning "evil" or "intention" but the problem is not just "sin" but "original sin". The notion that Adam's sin is passed down to every subsequent generation such that the natural state of man is sin (fallen from grace). This notion subsequently leads to such absurd doctrines as that unbaptised infants go to limbo or purgatory not to heaven. That dying without absolution of sins (last rites) results in exclusion from heaven, etc. That salvation can only be obtained through Christ and through the Church excluding all other faiths and all other traditions.

The other problem is the notion that "original sin" involves sex or sexuality between adam and eve and that eve is primarily at fault (led adam astray) resulting in centuries of the deeming of sex and of woman.

None of these original sin notions or notions about women and sex are found in the Jewish tradition which is curious because the story is from the Jewish Bible and was "originally" a Jewish not a Christian story.
So there is still a problem not just "sin", intention or evil but "original sin".

Let's suppose there is original sin. But that be the only kind of evil there is? Original sin is evil. But that doesn't mean that only original sin is evil.

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 08:23 PM ----------

IntoTheLight;107943 wrote:

Trust Kennethamy to make rebuttals to arguments nobody made in the first place. -rolls eyes-

-ITL-

Original sin may be evil, of course. But that does not mean that only original sin is evil. It is simple. Apple are fruit, of course. But that doesn't mean that only apples are fruit.

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;107749 wrote:

Greetings to all...

The tree is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to eating from it, A&E had no knowledge of good or evil. It was only after they ate from it that they realized they'd done something wrong.

My argument is that: if one has no knowledge of good nor evil, then any act one does cannot be considered "good" or "evil" - it is neutral in the context of one's knowledge.

-ITL-

I think you're right here.

I see Genesis as a book of sublime myth and equally sublime narrative.

@IntoTheLight,

I think it is a mistake to interpret the bible in a literal-factual or literal -historical fashion. The authors of the Bible were telling the stories to impart a message of meaning and explanation for why things are the way they are from a pre-modern viewpoint and had little intention to impart a literal-factual-historical accounting of actual events. This is true of all myths. Mythical stories are told to impart archetypal truths. The truth of the story is in its deeper message about human nature, the human condition and to impart a sense of meaning in the context of the culture where the story is told.

Anyway alternative interpretations to the traditional (original sin) or literal historical factual interpretation are given in the following

Genesis 3

1Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Although eve knows that fruit is forbidden. She does not know why. She only knows obedience to god is to not eat the fruit. She has the innocence of a child obeying its parent without understanding (knowledge) of the reason for the rule. She is in a state of innocence and harmony with nature and with god.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: The serpent seemingly tells the truth. They do not die; at least not right away or soon.

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 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. Man wants to be like god. Instead of obedience and acceptance, man places knowledge over obedience. Innocence is lost, harmony is broken, man becomes alienated and separated from god and nature. (The Fall) Now man wishes for knowledge, power, dominion (to be like god) instead of living in harmony with nature and god. The serpent again tells the truth knowledge is gained but innocence and harmony are lost. The world is changed forever.

7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Apparently part of the knowledge gained after eating from the tree is shame at nakedness and in some interpretations sex. The relationship between nakedness, sex and clothes.

8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? God (omnipotent and omniscient?) must call out to find Adam and Eve? Not to mention that a omnipotent and omniscient god should have been able to foresee the entire course of events in the first place. Just one of many stories where god in the bible and ancient tradition is not portrayed as the medieval scholastics later claim.

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Apparently god does not know he has been disobeyed (the fruit of the tree has been eaten) but deduces that fact from Adams and Eves knowledge and shame about their nakedness.

12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. Woman as the source of temptation and the source of trouble for man.

13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Snakes were regarded as proverbially clever in the biblical world. Snake worship was not uncommon in the ancient Near East. Why don't snakes have any legs? Snakes can be poisonous.

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Why do woman have pain in childbirth? Prior to this time women just seemed to get pregnant and have children. The relationship between sex (a form of planting) and conception and children 9 months later was emerging.

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Transition from hunter gatherer (garden of Eden) to a agricultural society (working of the ground). Also access to the tree of life is now denied and man becomes mortal.

20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Adams and Eve as showing that all men are related (we are all sisters and brothers) all children of common parents. All children of god. We all have a common origin.

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Apparently there are at least two special trees in the garden. The tree of good and evil (knowledge) and the tree of life (eternal). Gods original plan included immortality for man.

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Modern interpreters consider the story to be an accounting of the transition from a hunter gatherer society to an agricultural society. Other changes occurring over this transition included clothing, tilling the ground and the realization about the relationship between sex and child bearing.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.Man is prevented from reentering the garden, destined to toil for his food and destined to live a mortal life (to die as god warned).

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» Disagreement with Genesis Original Sin concept

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Disagreement with Genesis Original Sin concept

Quick Links

My Account

able2know