ultimate fate of adam and eve

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by lastgasp *
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but really, it’s ok.

Well, your interpretation is novel to me.

First of all, I was specifically talking about Adam and Eve (not “people”) before eating the fruit, and Eden (not Earth)

Adam and Eve are descibed as people (Adam even means “man”) and Eden is described as a place on Earth.

So by eating the fruit, they achieved consciousness, the ‘prize’ of humanity, that which separates us from animals.

The Biblical text already makes clear that man was inherently superior to animals (not now, Vegans) as he was created in God’s image – i.e. I would interpret this, since God is a conscious being, as saying they already had consciousness at that point.

Now it’s implicit, to me at least, that Adam and Eve lived as slaves in Eden

I don’t see how you can justify this from the text. Apparently, they had a pretty good time. They names all the animals and plants. Um. And some other stuff. They were free to do whatever they wanted except eat the fruit. I know four walls do not a prison make, but that is hardly comparable to slavery.

and humankind truly began after the expulsion (if you challenge that, I can go into lots more detail at some later point).

Well, history began. I suppose it is fair to say that. Modern man, if you will?

I’d rather be a sentient being in this world, then a mindless slave in paradise

Right. Well, that is what the devil says: better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Nothing new under the sun.

And it all hinges on whether you think consciousness is a good or a bad gift.

Or would I rather be a fish, right? I still think our consciousness is inherent in our being made in the image of God. If you are an atheist, that is easily reversible – man made God as an image of his own consciousness, right?

Why is the fruit symbolic of consciouness? Think about it; we need consciousness to understand what is good, yet obviously good and evil are inextricably bound, so evil comes along for the ride too, hence the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Any distinction between the two requires the ability to reason, an undisputable facet of consciousness.

The ability to name animals and distinguish between them also requires reason, and hence consciousness. Although you make a good point here. But eating the fruit was the only evil thing they could have done, so acting in evil in and of itself would make them aware of the differences between them. The Devil told them if they ate of the fruit they would become like Gods. Big surprise: he was lying (such an unpredictable character that guy) – and they were royally screwed instead.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

<< Do Jews just ignore this part of the Bible entirely? >>

Certainly not. But Jews do not interpret the story to mean that Adam and Eve’s sin contaminates all of mankind. The doctrine of Original Sin, that a baby at birth is tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve, is NOT found in the book of Genesis, and is NOT Jewish doctrine.

In fact, as an interesting argument, the sin of Adam and Eve are punished by:
(a) No longer being able to eat from the fruit of the trees, but forced to till the land. And the rest of the book of Genesis is dripping with stories about famines: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob all suffer from famines that force them to move about and suffer. It’s famine, famine, famine.

(b) Pain in child-bearing and child-rearing. And the rest of the book of Genesis is full of stories about conflict between siblings (Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Joseph/brothers).

HOWEVER, both of these conflicts are resolved in the story of Joseph. Joseph overcomes the famine by rationing food; and he overcomes the sibling-strife by reconciling with and forgiving his brothers. And finally, when Joseph’s brothers are fearful of him, he says (IIRC) something like, “I am not God” – in contrast with Adam and Eve who eat the fruit to “be like God.”

Henceforth in the Old Testament, there is almost no mention of famine or of sibling rivalry. Those two major themes of the book of Genesis disappear after the story of Joseph.

Thus, a Jewish perspective could easily argue that the curse on Adam and Eve is undone by Joseph. Far from Original Sin tainting all of mankind, the curse on Adam and Eve is ended by Joseph’s actions in NOT trying to be like God.

How’s that for an interesting hijack?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by CKDextHavn *
Certainly not. But Jews do not interpret the story to mean that Adam and Eve’s sin contaminates all of mankind. The doctrine of Original Sin, that a baby at birth is tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve, is NOT found in the book of Genesis, and is NOT Jewish doctrine.

It’s famine, famine, famine.

Yep, yep, yep.

conflict between siblings (Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Joseph/brothers).

That is an interesting interp of the curse of Eve! I like it! I always had to edit that part out in my mind as a more mythical part of the parable – that makes sense if that is what God alluded to.

HOWEVER, both of these conflicts are resolved in the story of Joseph.

Well, I’ve always said man should have long since conquered the punishments of original sin in some regard. What part of the OT is this covered in?

Henceforth in the Old Testament, there is almost no mention of famine or of sibling rivalry.

Well, that isn’t just the end of the “soap opera,” is it? I mean after that, if it is all prophets yelling about man / Israel having left God’s ways, I wouldn’t expect too much else in that vein. But I think there are still wars and famines to this day, and many still are forced to work for food. If Joseph had offered a solution which completely repaired the punishment for original sin, I’d regard him as the messiah. And that would be the end of the story.

How’s that for an interesting hijack?

Really informative. Thanks!

[mangeorge]

Were Adam and Eve black? Like Jesus?
I did a search, and all I found was this thread.
Peace,
mangeorge

[lastgasp]

jmullaney:

The Biblical text already makes clear that man was inherently superior to animals (not now, Vegans) as he was created in God’s image – i.e. I would interpret this, since God is a conscious being, as saying they already had consciousness at that point.

I’m not so sure. God gave Adam dominion over all living things, but that does not imply consciousness. This passage implies to me more of a justification to exploit god’s creations than anything else. As to the question of man being created in god’s image, god does concede that “man has become like one of us”, but this is only after Adam ate the fruit.

Your other point, about Adam naming god’s creatures, is well-taken. But again, I don’t think this necessarily means that Adam is fully conscious. To distinguish between animals (of which there is no mention in Genesis) need not be associated with consciousness as many insentient animals are capable of this to some extent.

To give more evidence that consciousness was attained by eating the fruit, consider the nudity aspect of the parable. Certainly we can agree that Western religions frown upon nudity, in general. Yet, the text says that Adam and Eve were nude and were not ashamed, before eating the fruit. However, upon eating the fruit, both became ashamed and made aprons out of fig leafs to cover themselves. Does this not imply self-consciousness and therefore consciousness? I’m all ears for other interpretations here.

Finally, I agree that ‘slave’ is a bad word to apply to Adam and Eve before eating the fruit. Though, as I maintain, they were not conscious, this clearly does not mean they have no will. I think soulless is appropriate given the circumstances here.

And one more finally,

Right. Well, that is what the devil says: better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Nothing new under the sun.

Cut me some slack; I’m not talking about ‘ruling’ over anybody except oneself (ie possession of consciousness).

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

<< But I think there are still wars and famines to this day, and many still are forced to work for food >>

Of course, and there’s still sibling rivalry. I’m not saying those things disappeared back in 3000 BC or so… I’m sticking to literary analysis, and just noting that the two predominant themes of Genesis (famine and family-conflict) almost disappear from the Bible text. There are VERY few references to famine after Joseph, and ditto to sibling rivalry. (Yes, there is a scene where Miriam and Aaron appear to be jealous of Moses, but it’s one minor little bit, it’s not a major plot point as the earlier sibling rivalries are. And it’s pretty quickly put down.)

[Ptahlis]

I have a hard time with the idea of Adam and Eve being less than conscious before the fruit incident. I don’t see it as a metaphor for achieving consciuosness itself, but of loss of innocence. In fact, it seems to me that since the act of eating the fruit is a decision that defies God’s will, they must have had free will in order to make the choice. And Eve had to have some reasoning ability in order to understand the serpent’s assurances of what eating the fruit would give to her. Free will, language, and reasoning ability all imply consciousness.

On the other hand, being ashamed of their nakedness doesn’t intimate to me that they achieved consciousness, but realized that it was “sinful” to be displaying themselves. They lost the innocence of being free from moral considerations. My daughter was certainly conscious at age three, but was unabashedly modesty-impaired nonetheless, and would streak through the house after a bath with complete aplomb.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by lastgasp *
As to the question of man being created in god’s image, god does concede that “man has become like one of us”, but this is only after Adam ate the fruit.

No. It is in Genesis 1:26 –

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Of course, that is the first story of creation – sufficient for the first 90,000 years man was on earth, whereas the second one, as parable, covers the change 11,000 years ago or so. I find it hard to believe man wasn’t conscious prior to the fall – the fossil record… Er. But I’m mixing fact and fiction here, I’ll just shush.

Though, as I maintain, they were not conscious, this clearly does not mean they have no will. I think soulless is appropriate given the circumstances here.

I have to maintain when the text says God made man in His own image he was imbued with his spiritual side then. Otherwise, your position is basically that the devil was telling the truth, which just isn’t going to go over well with those who actually believe the Bible is “the word of God.” But the devil wasn’t, because we did not like Gods with the exception of knowing good from evil.

And one more finally,

Right. Well, that is what the devil says: better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Nothing new under the sun.

Cut me some slack; I’m not talking about ‘ruling’ over anybody except oneself (ie possession of consciousness).

OK, I just mean, no offense, but you aren’t planning on going to heaven, right? (not that I am, mind you). The devil doesn’t rule over anyone but himself either. You seem to equate consciousness with doing evil and that is a dangerous thing to do.

[lastgasp]

I have a hard time with the idea of Adam and Eve being less than conscious before the fruit incident. I don’t see it as a metaphor for achieving consciuosness itself, but of loss of innocence.

Far be it for me to say, but I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive, at least in this case.

Let me break it down like this. If you had no understanding of good and evil, you would do whatever you wanted to do. In short, you would be an instinctual, primeval creature. However, if you did possess some knowledge of good and evil, then at times you would have to suppress your desires (or your primeval man within) for the sake of some higher morality. This is the difference between humans and animals. And this is what I mean by consciousness. So this knowledge is required for any being to be considered conscious. Dig?

And Eve had to have some reasoning ability in order to understand the serpent’s assurances of what eating the fruit would give to her. Free will, language, and reasoning ability all imply consciousness.

No reasoning was required. The phrase ‘monkey see, monkey do’ comes to mind. Communication does not imply consciousness. All animals have choice, and therefore free will (in the way you use it). So I’m still not convinced.

As far as the nudity question goes, the fact that Adam and Eve are not ashamed before eating the fruit clearly indicates they were not self-conscious. Not to say that one should be ashamed, but from the perspective of the author(s) of Genesis (anti-nudity), this can be inferred.

[lastgasp]

As for you, jmullaney (kidding),

As to the question of man being created in god’s image, god does concede that “man has become like one of us”, but this is only after Adam ate the fruit.

No. It is in Genesis 1:26

Now that we’re quoting scripture, Gen 3:22 = “And 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”

You seem to equate consciousness with doing evil [eating the forbidden fruit] and that is a dangerous thing to do.

Perhaps, yet if you agree at all with the interpretation, then this is a given. The only way to save face is to show that god wanted it that way. This can be attempted, but not now, I’m starving.

And I’m only going to heaven under my own terms…shit!

What do you think of my last post?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Reasoning is CERTAINLY required before eating of the tree… read the text. The serpent attempts several approaches before he hits on one that Eve agrees with. If Eve has no consciousness, then there’s no free will or deliberate decision-making, and the story becomes meaningless.
<< To give more evidence that consciousness was attained by eating the fruit, consider the nudity aspect of the parable. Certainly we can agree that Western religions frown upon nudity, in general. Yet, the text says that Adam and Eve were nude and were not ashamed, before eating the fruit. However, upon eating the fruit, both became ashamed and made aprons out of fig leafs to cover themselves. Does this not imply self-consciousness and therefore consciousness? I’m all ears for other interpretations here. >>

I don’t have a text handy, I’m at work, so this is from memory.

First, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is not necessarily literal. “Good and evil” is often used in the Bible text to mean “soup to nuts” or “A to Z”, to imply everything in between.

Second, I put forth the interpretation that the nudity isn’t what bothers them per se. The text (IIRC) doesn’t actually mention the nudity as the source of their discomfort. Having eaten from the fruit, they have knowledge of the world; and that means knowledge of God; and they have come to realize how utterly naked they are in God’s eyes. They realize the awesomeness of God being able to see the core of their souls, knowing every one of their innermost thoughts, seeing their most private deeds – their entire identity and existence laid open and bare before God. THAT is the change that comes over them, not merely physical nudity, but psychological and emotional nudity.

How you like them apples? (cough, cough … actually, the apple is a mistake, it was probably more a pomegranite-type fruit. The text doesn’t ever say.)

My interpretation is more readily supported if I could cite text, perhaps tonight.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by lastgasp *
**
Let me break it down like this. If you had no understanding of good and evil, you would do whatever you wanted to do. In short, you would be an instinctual, primeval creature. However, if you did possess some knowledge of good and evil, then at times you would have to suppress your desires (or your primeval man within) for the sake of some higher morality. This is the difference between humans and animals. And this is what I mean by consciousness. So this knowledge is required for any being to be considered conscious. Dig?
**

If you define moral decisions to be a necessary component of consciousness, then I see where you are going with your argument, although I disagree with your definition. In my estimation, a being that can make decisions based on reason and prediction of outcome qualifies as conscious regardless of whether morality enters into it or not. I see consciousness as a continuum, one which animals definitely share in, and not as a state reserved solely for humanity. By inserting ‘moral judgement’ into the equation, you are basically requiring consciousness to be defined by an aspect of human society, and I cannot credit this.

[Eve]

I can clear all this up—Adam moved to New Orleans, and I write for “Movieline” now.

OK?

[lastgasp]

Ptahlis, the key psychological distinction between animals and humans is that animals operate instinctually, as humans do too at times, but humans have an added cognitive layer, it’s common to call this consciousness. So yes this is a requirement. Simply because instinctual thought is mindless. We often do this, like dropping a really hot object. I did this the other day and broke a bowl… Or how about ‘gut’ feelings? Sure, animals have a certain level of awareness and reason (coming up…), but there is a disparity between animal and human psychologies.

In all fairness, I concede that Adam and Eve had some reasoning power. Even an animal stepping into fire would learn its lesson, and not repeat the same mistake. So animals have some reasoning ability, but this does not necessarily make them ‘conscious’ in the way I describe.

{CKDextHavn}The serpent attempts several approaches before he hits on one that Eve agrees with. If Eve has no consciousness, then there’s no free will or deliberate decision-making, and the story becomes meaningless.

It only takes the serpent one shot. I’m not equating consciousness with free will (in the sense of making choices). This would be a mistake; animals exhibit this kind of free will. When I read the passage, it seems like Adam and Eve are not doing much in the way of thinking (ie they are acting instinctually), first they follow god, then the serpent.

{CKDextHavn}they have come to realize how utterly naked they are in God’s eyes. They realize the awesomeness of God being able to see the core of their souls, knowing every one of their innermost thoughts, seeing their most private deeds – their entire identity and existence laid open and bare before God. THAT is the change that comes over them, not merely physical nudity, but psychological and emotional nudity.

My friend, aren’t you describing a kind of higher consciousness gained, by way of a slightly different interpretation? Nudity isn’t what’s important, it’s just a particular, it’s the dramatic psychological metaphormisis that’s important, the knowledge and the realizations. The result of this explosion of knowledge I call consciousness. By the way, this convinces me we are looking in the same general direction.

{Ptahlis}By inserting ‘moral judgement’ into the equation, you are basically requiring consciousness to be defined by an aspect of human society, and I cannot credit this.

Why not? As I see it, morality is exclusively human. Animals are instinctual, and therefore do whatever they want. Morality, derived from the knowledge of good and evil, is far from their minds, though their actions and morality may accidentally coincide sometimes. Humans act like this too, at times, but they have the capability to suppress their instinctual desires for the sake of a higher ‘good’. Fundamentally, these are two different mindsets.