# Plot Hole: Original Sin? Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682 "2014-01-02T05:40:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/41 "2014-01-02T20:38:56Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Sorry if this amounts to flagellating a fallen freiberger, but I was kind of inspired by [a Café thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=711479), as well as a discussion on another site. > > Taking the convergent story of the “fall of man” in the biblical Genesis, I have this question: Eve allegedly committed the first (original) sin, but what was it? > > Jehovallah instructed Adam, and by proxy Eve (who had not been invented yet) that of all the trees in the garden, he was not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (“Eve” \<-\> “evil”, curious assonance), because he would die if he did. Essentially, it identified the fruit of that tree as toxic, which means the instruction was not of a moral nature but of a cautionary one. In fact, in his state of innocence, could Adam even grasp the concept of morality (which he later earned as a consequence of eating that same fruit)? > > So, now we have the dragon, which tells Eve that Jehovallah is a lying bastard (true enough), that the fruit of that tree will not in fact kill her, it will teach her stuff. She gnoshes down on the fruit, finding it to be tasty and the dragon to be correct. AFAICT, There is no moral lesson to be had here, other than that it is ok for the deity to fib. > > But here is where it falls apart: Eve has eaten this fruit, hence she now has knowledge of good and evil in her belly. Yet, she proceeds to encourage Adam to chow down on this fruit as well. If it were wrong to eat it, she would now know that and would realistically refrain from spreading wrongness in the world. > > Either eating the fruit was not sinful, or Eve was just a nasty person. The original mother of all humanity was bad? Granted, Jehovallah subsequent actions do seem to impugn her character, but we have already learned that he was a lying prick (as also shown in stories that follow). > > Basically, for humans, prior to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there was no such thing as sin or morality for them. How then could Eve have even sinned if she could not understand the very concept of sin? How could her act be construed as sinful when the original injunction was framed as a toxicity advisory with no specific moral imperative (which she would not have been able to fathom in the first place)? And most importantly, why the hell did she and Adam not start off with the Tree of Life (Pak jokes notwithstanding)? You are missing a important part, Adam and Eve were always one, whether in 1 flesh or 2, they were always one with each other. Adam (as the single being) was divided into 2, Eve was not created independently of Adam. So her taking the fruit meant he also took of the fruit. His physical partaking was sealed signed and delivered by her actions. The ‘sin of Eve’ was adding to the word of God, she states that God said she ‘should not even touch’ the fruit, God never said that -all He said is don’t eat of it, so Satan (the serpent) didn’t have to lie outright, but told Eve the (partially omitted) truth that God never said that. The sin of adding to the word of God is expressed in Revelation 22:18, stating all the plagues of this book will be added for that, and her children have suffered all those plagues. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/42 "2014-01-02T20:45:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I know that Genesis never specifies what kind of fruit, but I thought t was pretty clear on the whole serpent thing. What was it, if not a snake? I believe in the root languages and culture, serpent is not exactly equivalent to snake, but means more like “evil creature” or “demon.” No cite handy. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/43 "2014-01-02T20:51:59Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I believe in the root languages and culture, serpent is not exactly equivalent to snake, but means more like “evil creature” or “demon.” No cite handy. I’m afraid I\* am \*going to want a cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/44 "2014-01-02T21:08:05Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The ‘sin of Eve’ was adding to the word of God, she states that God said she ‘should not even touch’ the fruit, God never said that -all He said is don’t eat of it, so Satan (the serpent) didn’t have to lie outright, but told Eve the (partially omitted) truth that God never said that. This is not born out in the text. At no time did Jehovallah ever declare to Adam and/or Eve that his words were inviolate – but that does not really matter, because they would not have understood “wrong”, they _had no knowledge of it_. Beyond that, the serpent does not dissemble or obfuscate, it clearly states that they will not die by eating the fruit. “Sin” requires a knowledge of proscription, which is not given in the account, in concert with a deliberate intent to violate the proscription (in the case of “adding to the word of god”, this is not evident), as well as an understanding of what “wrong” means, which neither of them had at that time. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/45 "2014-01-02T21:09:21Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > I’m afraid I\* am \*going to want a cite for that. Refer, above, to post #33 ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/46 "2014-01-02T21:30:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But why did God create us in this way? By retconning the Adam and Eve story to make it a choice, not an inherent human characteristic, the Christians dumped the responsibility on us and not on God. I cannot speak for what other Christians believe, but speaking for myself; it’s akin to how we explain things to children. If a child asks where children come from, I’m not going to go into the physiology of sex and birth. After all, that’s not even what a child is even interested in knowing. That is what I think this story is trying to do. If we believe that God is perfect, and yet we are not, I interpret the story as our attempt to understand that apparent problem, but to a people that are far less sophisticated than we are today. > [@For You](#): > > Sorry, not seeing that at all. It is not even obvious that Adam and Eve were spiritual beings, unlike the humans who were created in chapter one (“out of nothing … in god’s likeness and image”). If nothing else, eating of the Tree was the opposite of spiritual death. You do realize that, in general, Christians believe that humans have both a physical body and a spirit/soul. If Adam and Eve are the first humans, actually or allegorical, it only makes sense that they too would have a the same aspects that make us human. > [@](#): > > Oh, and the OT is decidedly mute on the topic of redemption/salvation, that appears to be a wholly christian invention. You do realize I’m speaking from a Christian perspective, yes? If you want a Jewish perspective, you’ll need someone who has a better understanding of their perspective to do that. > [@](#): > > This is nonsensical. There is absolutely no moral imperative associated with the tree of life. Perhaps you should avoid explaining theology, your explanations do not seem to work. I never said there was a moral imperative, this is a straw man, so your tone is unwarranted. I was commenting on the matter of giving eternal life to a being that doesn’t have the wisdom to handle it. For example, imagine a teenager who wants to get some sort of body modification, something as simple as a tattoo, or perhaps something more drastic, it really doesn’t matter for the sake of this point. His parents are likely to forbid him from doing that at 13 but may be more inclined to let him do it when he’s a bit older, and obviously have no legal authority once he’s 18. Chances are, a 13 year old who wants to do that is lacking the wisdom to understand that he may not actually want that in a few years or, depending on what it is, might hurt future job prospects. He lacks the knowledge and experience to make a wise choice. But as we get older and gain more wisdom and experience, we’re trusted to make more decisions for ourselves and we’re expected to deal with those consequences. So, the point I’m trying to highlight here, is that this is a much more drastic. It would be like giving a young child the powers and responsibilities associated with being an adult. Though they may have the ability to make moral decisions, they don’t have the wisdom and experience to do it. In short, to some degree, we’re limited in how much we can mess up because we’re only allowed to live for so long. And, to tie back in with my response to **Voyager** , it is also part of us trying to understand why an eternal and all-powerful God would create mortal impotent beings like us. > [@](#): > > Holy crap, is that how you view morality? Sounds dreadfully subjective to me. This is pretty basic psychology here, look at the [stages of moral development](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). How do you think we come to learn morality? As children, we get punished when we do something wrong and we get rewarded when we do something right. As we get older and get more sophisticated reasoning, we start having more sophisicated motivations behind our moral reasoning. My morals are far more sophisticated than that, but certainly at younger ages, my morals were guided more by rules, social norms, or as simple as “because mommy/daddy said so”. But the point is, regardless of what our moral motivations are, moral decisions are essentially nothing more than realizing that choices and actions have consequences and, thus, we should make the choices and do the actions that further whatever our moral motives are. By this same logic, it is unreasonable to put modern moral standards on a society millenia ago. Not only do individuals have stages of moral development, but so does society. This is evidenced just by looking at even recent history. Once slavery was acceptable, now virtually everyone finds it morally repulsive. Racism used to be acceptable, it’s well on it’s way out. Even in the last couple decades or so, we’re seeing a massive societal shift in moral views on homosexuality. So, other than “Holy crap!” I don’t see what you could possibly find bizarre about a less morally sophisticated society, believing that there’s greater moral relevance to the apparent incongruities between what they believe to be the nature of God and what they observe as the nature of man. In that perspective–and to clarify, this is not my personal moral belief–it is reasonable to see that clearly if we’ve been “punished” by having shorter lives, painful child birth, having to work the land, etc. then that effect must have had a cause, and because it’s a negative consequence, it must have been caused by a bad thing. After all, a lot of ancient societies had this sort of view of God or whatever gods they believed in. If there was a bad storm, an earthquake, or an epidemic, they must have done something wrong to anger God and he was punishing them. How is this really all that much different in absolute terms of cultural moral development? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/47 "2014-01-02T21:58:49Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Refer, above, to post #33 That pretty much sums up what I meant, thanks. Biblically, “serpent” means “snake like” but uses it as an attribute of an evil or malicious being rather than a literal description. It appears that the serpent in the garden was turned into a snake for its machinations. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/48 "2014-01-02T22:03:42Z")
> [@For You](#): > > This is not born out in the text lets review the text God: [QUOTE=Gen 2:17] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” [/QUOTE] Eve: [QUOTE=Gen3:3] but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden,\*\* and you must not touch it\*\*, or you will die.’” [/QUOTE] Bold mine, Eve seemed to add to the word of God here. > [@](#): > > Beyond that, the serpent does not dissemble or obfuscate, it clearly states that they will not die by eating the fruit. Also we know that Adam and presumable Eve did die, so the serpent did lie. [QUOTE=Gen 5:5] Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. [/QUOTE] I think Eve’s death can be justified as a upper limit of the flood ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/49 "2014-01-02T22:22:29Z")
> [@For You](#): > > “Sin” requires a knowledge of proscription, which is not given in the account, in concert with a deliberate intent to violate the proscription (in the case of “adding to the word of god”, this is not evident), as well as an understanding of what “wrong” means, which neither of them had at that time. If this is the case why have the children of Eve suffered all the plagues written about in this book, and we already know sin is passed on from parent to child. [QUOTE=Rev 22:18] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book [/QUOTE] So I see that it is not so much of disobedience, but opening a door they were warned not to. That door lead to all the sin and the effects of that sin we now suffer with. Quite ironically by Eve placing additional restrictions that appear to safeguard herself from eating the fruit (she added ‘not to touch it either’) may have been the very hook Satan used (via the serpent) to cause her fall. ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/50 "2014-01-02T22:22:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And what happens when another adult says that it’s okay to stick stuff into the electrical socket? Does the first adult bear _any_ responsibility for childproofing the home and removing bad influences, and do you throw the kids out of the house because they didn’t understand that some adults lie? That’s the part that always bothered me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/51 "2014-01-02T23:15:53Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I cannot speak for what other Christians believe, but speaking for myself; it’s akin to how we explain things to children. If a child asks where children come from, I’m not going to go into the physiology of sex and birth. After all, that’s not even what a child is even interested in knowing. That is what I think this story is trying to do. If we believe that God is perfect, and yet we are not, I interpret the story as our attempt to understand that apparent problem, but to a people that are far less sophisticated than we are today. Does the need for Christ’s redemption stem directly from the Fall or not? In other words, if Adam and Eve did not eat the fruit, would redemption be required for them. (I suppose there would be no one else unless Adam got lucky. ) Given that we are mortal, and that we suffer, it is reasonable that there be a story explaining it. That has nothing to do with original sin though. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/52 "2014-01-02T23:25:25Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > That pretty much sums up what I meant, thanks. > > Biblically, “serpent” means “snake like” but uses it as an attribute of an evil or malicious being rather than a literal description. It appears that the serpent in the garden was turned into a snake for its machinations. Not getting that. > [@](#): > > 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil 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? definitely implies that the serpent was a beast of the field, just the sliest one. And > [@](#): > > 3:14 And 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: Upon his belly shall he go - in other words he lost his legs. No other transformation seems called for here. I’m sure some Christian proposes your definition of serpent to account for the embarrassing fact that Satan appears nowhere in this story. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/53 "2014-01-03T00:18:16Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > You do realize that, in general, Christians believe that humans have both a physical body and a spirit/soul. If Adam and Eve are the first humans, actually or allegorical, it only makes sense that they too would have a the same aspects that make us human. Neither actually nor allegorically were Adam and Eve the first humans. The first humans were created near the end of the first chapter of Genesis, side-by-side, out of nothing, in god’s likeness and image. Adam was created later, from the dust of the earth, in chapter two, and Eve shortly after that, surgically, from Adam’s side (translated as “rib”). Clearly, the first humans were spiritual beings, and clearly they were not Adam and Eve, whose creation took a wholly different tack. Obviously, the children of Adam and Eve interbred with the children of the unnamed first man and woman, and thence humans acquired a spiritual nature. > [@](#): > > I never said there was a moral imperative, this is a straw man, so your tone is unwarranted. I was commenting on the matter of giving eternal life to a being that doesn’t have the wisdom to handle it. Sorry about the tone. But there was no apparent rightness or wrongness to eating from the tree of life. God counted itself lucky that they failed to do so, because that would have rendered them immortal, though I rather fail to see why that would have been a real problem – they would have had more time to explore and gain a better understanding of morality. > [@](#): > > This is pretty basic psychology here, look at the [stages of moral development](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). How do you think we come to learn morality? From a religious perspective, morality derives from the holy writ. It is the transcription of the word of Jehovallah, what more would one need? > [@](#): > > So, other than “Holy crap!” I don’t see what you could possibly find bizarre … You seemed to imply that practical morality (which can be studied at length on other threads) boils down to how we feel about the result. But sometimes we do morally right things even though the outcome is not to our liking. Ending slavery might be one example. Another might be the difficult choice between letting your tribe starve or leading your tribe to wipe out the tribe in the next valley and take their stuff. How we feel about an outcome is subjective, depending which “we” you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/54 "2014-01-03T00:26:14Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > … we know that Adam and presumable Eve did die, so the serpent did lie. Their lives eventually came to an end solely because they failed at some point to eat from the tree of life. Eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil only resulted in their mortality because they were booted out of the garden before they got around to eating from the tree of life. > [@kanicbird](#): > > If this is the case why have the children of Eve suffered all the plagues written about in this book, and we already know sin is passed on from parent to child. Do we? Where exactly is that written? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/55 "2014-01-03T12:23:15Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Their lives eventually came to an end solely because they failed at some point to eat from the tree of life. Eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil only resulted in their mortality because they were booted out of the garden before they got around to eating from the tree of life. > > Do we? Where exactly is that written? Some good points, and to your last Q the plagues in the book of Revelation to come are the plagues of the Exodus. So it is written in the book of Exodus. So it just took things to spiral out from the original sin till the children of A&E got the rules and violated them. Also wanted to restate the death of Eve, we don’t know that, only Adam we know. It is possible that Eve was taken directly to heaven as was Enoch. That is unless the grave of Adam and Eve is Biblical, I do know that A&E’s grave is in mythology, but I don’t recall if that is biblically supportable. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/56 "2014-01-03T12:56:57Z")
Child custody conjecture… An explanation how 2 innocent children (Adam and Eve) could have been placed in this situation without fault of God, nor Adam or Eve or the Serpent. For this the Serpent is defined as Satan (as given in the Book of Revelation), actually they are 2 beings that have become one with each other. Satan the main fault, but the serpent intrinsically connected to the ideals of Satan. (just like a brainwashes follower of a cult). So ultimately it is Satan who is at fault. It draws upon what happens in modern life and has always happened here, and that what is ‘bound in the heavens is bound on earth’ aka what goes on here also goes on there. This earth has been given to Satan to rule for a time, in scripture a quote from Jesus: [QUOTE=John 16:11] and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. [/QUOTE] Satan controls this world (for a time). I feel the reason for that control is given in the curse of Eve, particularly Gen 3:16b "Your desire will be for your husband, \*\* and he will rule over you.\*\*” This rule would also need to be bound in the heavens (Matt 16:19). Satan would rule over the earth if Satan was the husband to ‘Mother Earth’ By this Satan is married to Mother Earth, and it is not a good marriage, there are many marriages shown as not good in the Bible, and God even orders a entire tribe of Israel to divorce all their wives - so marriage is not really considered always good, there are many that should not happen. Modern life bears this out, there are many such bad marriages. In this case Satan is a evil abusive being, married to Mother Earth who is in submission to Satan. Through Satan’s rulership he sets up the current state where animals eat each other, and there is pain and misery on earth. This is Satan abusing the children he has with Mother Earth. Scripturally God does produce children, Jesus is the primary example, and God does not follow the rules of marriage. We also see that the ‘sons’ of God creating children with the daughters of men. My further conjecture is that a archangel (son of God) fell in love and had sex with mother earth, producing Adam and Eve who are children of God and of Mother Earth). Child custody issues begin. Satan is not happy with this turn of events. God’s children receive protection and see only paradise, not the corruption that Satan did to this world. Satan tempts and deceives them to see the world he created, to open their eyes to things like animals eating each other. And more importantly, makes Adam and Eve afraid of God (they were hiding from God). So while Adam and Eve are children of God, their step Father Satan hates them and does whatever he can from placing a divide in the children’s minds to seperate them from their identity of children of God. God’s plan is through this relationship of Love between the (unnamed) son of God and Mother Earth is a child who will save Mother Earth and dispose of Satan’s hold over her, and restore this world to paradise. Satan’s fate is written about in several places, but also, again what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Satan’s fate is in the curse of Adam, namely Satan will die (return to the dust). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/57 "2014-01-03T13:09:41Z")
An archangel had sex with “Mother Earth”, producing Adam and Eve, and Satan is their stepfather? And you got this from reading the Bible?? _wow!_ ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/58 "2014-01-03T14:55:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > An archangel had sex with “Mother Earth”, producing Adam and Eve, and Satan is their stepfather? > And you got this from reading the Bible?? > > _wow!_ Anything biblically wrong with an Archangel (son of God), having sex or producing children? What are the issues you are having with this? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/59 "2014-01-03T15:08:18Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Anything biblically wrong with an Archangel (son of God), having sex or producing children? What are the issues you are having with this? My issue? How about the fact that _none_ of what you say happened is actually in the Bible. No archangel having sex with “Mother Earth”, no mention of Adam and Eve being brother and sister, and no mention of Satan being their step-father. You are not only reading between the lines-the lines you are reading between exist only in your imagination. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682/60 "2014-01-03T15:21:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > My issue? How about the fact that _none_ of what you say happened is actually in the Bible. No archangel having sex with “Mother Earth”, Who is this child, who is this mother, How did she become pregnant? in Rev 12? > [@](#): > > 1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. > [@](#): > > no mention of Adam and Eve being brother and sister, They are brother and sister by definition, the same father, God. Though I don’t recall stating that outright (even though the NT commonly states we are all brothers and sisters of each other), just stated that they were 2 very young children that were frightened by Satan and the place Satan has created for them that they hid from God. > [@](#): > > and no mention of Satan being their step-father. Satan is said to have children here on earth as well as God > [@](#): > > 1 John 3:10 > This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. Is it also that Satan ‘rules’ over the earth (price of the world), Satan claims in the temptation of Jesus that all the kingdoms of the world were given to him. In the curse of Eve we see that the woman is ruled over by her husband, and this is as the World is ruled over by Satan. Is there a living spiritual entity ‘Mother Earth’, I refer you back to my first quote and questions about who is that woman if not Mother Earth, who is (as Eve was also cursed with)experiencing great pain in childbirth. > [@](#): > > You are not only reading between the lines-the lines you are reading between exist only in your imagination. But my claim is it is consistent with ‘God is Love’, ‘God is good’ and scriptures can not be broken. I have not seen any way to justify ‘God is Love’ with conventional interpertations. So while this may be reading between the lines, it does not contradict God is Love. And that last one I feel is a very large stumbling block for those people who wish not to acknowledge a God, they want a hateful spiteful God for if that is the God presented to them they have the logical excuse to disregard God. But if you show them a loving God, well they would rather not know that because then they have to look at the possibility that God exists and is worthy to be called their parent - which many people are not comfortable doing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plot-hole-original-sin-huh/677682.md?page=4)