The original story shows that the first humans sinned, and as a result they and the rest of us were ejected from Eden, and live in the current imperfect world. But there are lots of ideas associated with this that are not in the story:
* That they were perfect before the sin, and as a result human nature was changed. The story could more plausibly be understood as showing that humans are inherently unable to completely avoid sin.
* That all humans are guilty of their sin. Since all humans are unable to avoid sin, they would be guilty on their own.
* That Christianity is inherently dependent upon that specific act, such that if there wasn’t a single Adam and Eve, there would be no need for Christ.
The last only makes sense if you assume that some humans would have avoided the sin. If human are inherently subject to sin, then it makes no difference if there was one pair or 1000. Indeed Gen 2 could reasonably be understood as the story of one representative human, showing what human nature in general is like.
A reasonable non-literal exegesis would be that the story is a parable, asserting that even if put in ideal circumstances, humans would sin. The imperfect world we are in now is, in part, a protection against the consequences of imperfect humans having access to powers that we could not responsibly use (symbolized by the trees). This doesn't require that the Garden or the trees ever actually existed. (The magic trees are so obviously features of folklore that I think it pretty likely that the editor of Genesis understood the story as non literal.)
A lot of the traditional discussion seems to be about avoiding God being the author of sin. But I don’t see any way you can avoid the concept that humanity as created by God — whether by special creation of evolution — was unable to avoid rejecting the first significant temptation it experienced. That doesn’t make God the source of sin, but it does mean he created a world in which sin would inevitably arise. Unless Satan is a separate and equal power, independent of God, involving him doesn’t change things. Presumably God expects us to live in dependence on him. That doesn’t eliminate sin, but it limits its scope, and makes sure that we repent and forgive each other, and thus avoid many of the most serious consequences.
It seems evident to me that humans evolved as extremely flexible beings, able to adapt to just about anything, and learn in surprising ways. We do this, in part, by trial and error. Thus our nature is both a strength and a weakness, the weakness being that we often do things that are wrong, sometimes significantly wrong. But God intends that we live in humility and communion with him. That would minimize the damage done by our weakness.
Thanks for your detailed response. This is a great discussion. (finally) I'll add some thoughts below.
The original story shows that the first humans sinned, and as a result they and the rest of us were ejected from Eden, and live in the current imperfect world. But there are lots of ideas associated with this that are not in the story:
* That they were perfect before the sin, and as a result human nature was changed. The story could more plausibly be understood as showing that humans are inherently unable to completely avoid sin. ...
At every stage in the creation account, each day, the text says that God reviewed the work and found it to be good. (whatever that means) I assume he found his work to be acceptable. Which would infer perfect work, rather than shoddy work. The creation of humankind was part of that perfect work.
And something terrible happened when they ate the fruit. (which I don't think had anything to do with the fruit itself, but with what it represented spiritually) They got the knowledge of good and evil that they wanted.
From my my perspective, this act opened their minds to the voice of the enemy, something they had only heard from the serpent up to this point. We see them suddenly scurrying around in obedience to this shaming voice. At the end of previous chapter we see them naked and unashamed. Now we see them scrambling to cover themselves. I love the unanswered question from God. "Who told you that you were naked?" Who indeed?
...
* That all humans are guilty of their sin. Since all humans are unable to avoid sin, they would be guilty on their own. ...
Don't we see this inferred in the consequences? The far-reaching effects? I agree with you that is wasn't clearly announced. But seems to have been well understood in the later writings. Especially the NT.
...
* That Christianity is inherently dependent upon that specific act, such that if there wasn’t a single Adam and Eve, there would be no need for Christ.
The last only makes sense if you assume that some humans would have avoided the sin. If human are inherently subject to sin, then it makes no difference if there was one pair or 1000. Indeed Gen 2 could reasonably be understood as the story of one representative human, showing what human nature in general is like. ...
Same answer as above. It is there, but not "decoded" until the advent of Christ.
I think it is important that it happened to the first pair. There needs to be a point of initiation. I have wondered on occasion what would have happened if Adam had refused to eat after Eve did. Would his headship have protected the rest of humanity? Or how would that play out?
If it was 1,000, there would still be an original sin. Who was first? Essentially this is what happened anyway. But if only two in the 1,000 sinned initially, might there be some who refused, seeing first hand the results of the transgression? Then what? A split in humanity? Or a story of the battle with sin that was eventually lost? Or a battle that continues to rage with a split in humanity between the fallen and the sinless. Similar to the angels, I suppose.
...
A reasonable non-literal exegesis would be that the story is a parable, asserting that even if put in ideal circumstances, humans would sin. The imperfect world we are in now is, in part, a protection against the consequences of imperfect humans having access to powers that we could not responsibly use (symbolized by the trees). This doesn't require that the Garden or the trees ever actually existed. (The magic trees are so obviously features of folklore that I think it pretty likely that the editor of Genesis understood the story as non literal.) ...
That's an interesting analysis. But again, it doesn't play out in the NT. Do you see any NT support for this idea? The figurative view seems to depend on ignoring the rest of the Bible. You are very knowledgeable about the whole book. Does this view hold up in the NT from your perspective?
...
A lot of the traditional discussion seems to be about avoiding God being the author of sin. But I don’t see any way you can avoid the concept that humanity as created by God — whether by special creation of evolution — was unable to avoid rejecting the first significant temptation it experienced. That doesn’t make God the source of sin, but it does mean he created a world in which sin would inevitably arise. Unless Satan is a separate and equal power, independent of God, involving him doesn’t change things. Presumably God expects us to live in dependence on him. That doesn’t eliminate sin, but it limits its scope, and makes sure that we repent and forgive each other, and thus avoid many of the most serious consequences. ...
I think we were set-up. This offends a lot of folks, but how can they not see it? You don't put a tree in the middle of the garden where it CANNOT be avoided and then attach consequences that are incomprehensible to those who might transgress, and then expect nothing to happen. The fact they had to be tricked into it is the part of the story that amazes me. They were obviously setup for failure, part of a far-reaching plan of redemption from my perspective.
...
It seems evident to me that humans evolved as extremely flexible beings, able to adapt to just about anything, and learn in surprising ways. We do this, in part, by trial and error. Thus our nature is both a strength and a weakness, the weakness being that we often do things that are wrong, sometimes significantly wrong. But God intends that we live in humility and communion with him. That would minimize the damage done by our weakness.
I mostly agree with this statement. Sometimes I wonder if God is amazed at us. Then I remember, "Oh wait, he's God. We can't really amaze him." - lol