Explain the Fall

[Calminian]

No, he's not. At least not by his own admission.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

God repays evil for evil. Vengeance is His. He and only He is just in doing so.

Anyway, Adam and Eve didn't sin when they ate from the tree. You can't sin unless you know what's wrong and what's right, but they didn't know the difference between right and wrong until they ate the from the Tree. They didn't know that disobeying God's word was wrong, therefore 1) God's punishment was unjust or 2) the Bible is an allegory that does contain errors because it was written by men.

Good objection! But I think the N.T. testament writers give us some insight on the subject. Sin is said to have entered into the world through one man, Adam. Ever wonder why it doesn't say through one woman? After all she ate first, right? So why does the whole thing rest on Adam?

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

This used to always bug me. Why is Adam blamed from bringing sin into the world and not Eve? In fact Paul seemingly completely exonerates Eve.

1Tim. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

You could say that while knowledge of good and evil may have entered through Eve, sin entered through Adam.

The prophet Hosea backs this up as well.

Hos. 6:4 “What can I do with you, Ephraim? What can I do with you, Judah? Your love is like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears. 5 Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth; my judgments flashed like lightning upon you. 6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant — they were unfaithful to me there.

The biblical writers cut all kinds of slack to Eve and none to Adam. It seems clear this is because Adam had knowledge and Eve did not. Of course Eve sinned later on as all did. But the sin she committed without knowledge was not imputed.

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

Of course today the only ones that are without knowledge of good and evil are young children. Just and pre-fallen Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness, neither are young children. This is why most theologians don't think children will be judged for their sin.

 

[dad]

Right...and he never explained to them the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

Why dwell on evil, in Paradise where all is good? We don't know all they talked about, but I don't think the first man and woman were dumb.

This is true. They were told not to eat it.

Right.

How were they to know it was wrong to trust the devil? They still didn't know the difference between right and wrong or good and evil until after they ate the fruit. They didn't know that listening to the snake was wrong.

Because they knew God (Jesus, I'd guess was who was walking with them then). They were commanded, and told with emphasis ('surely') not to do it, or they would die.

You, who accuse more liberal Christians of interpreting the Bible too loosely, are trying to make assumptions about the meaning of God's word? How odd. And "just not right" is not an answer.

We have certain known factors to work with. God is Love. He is good, kind, just, righteous, etc. We can believe the warning for such a serious set of concequences was clear.

Like I've already said, they had no way of knowing that going against God was "just not right" until after they had eaten the fruit.

No, after the fruit, they got to know evil up close and personal. They got a belly full. We have ever since. They even charge tuition these days to learn a lot of it. They knew.

 

[Nemoralis]

Ever wonder why it doesn't say through one woman? After all she ate first, right? So why does the whole thing rest on Adam?

Probably because this was a patriarchal society, and the Bible was written by man.

It seems clear this is because Adam had knowledge and Eve did not. Of course Eve sinned later on as all did. But the sin she committed without knowledge was not imputed.

I see what you are saying, but the Bible says differently. Genesis 3:16 -
To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

So evidently God did find Eve guilty, she did sin by eating the apple, and he did punish her.

But overall this is the best argument yet. I haven't researched this at all since I only realized it about a week ago. I'll do some digging and see if there are any good claims against this.

----------------------------------------------

They were commanded, and told with emphasis ('surely') not to do it, or they would die.

This doesn't answer the question. They still had no way of knowing that God was right and the serpent was wrong. They could not have known that disobeying was wrong.

We can believe the warning for such a serious set of concequences was clear.

Sure, the warning was clear. The serpent's offer was also clear. How was Eve to know that it was right to obey God and wrong to believe the serpent?

You are not answering anything.

 

[awstar]

Your analogy is bogus because gravity is not portayed by it's followers [sic] as a loving, benevolent creater. Gravity is a force - it doesn't have a choice to change its nature when ignorant people are unaware of its effects.

God doesn't have a choice to change His nature either. If the creation doesn't glorify the creator, then it is unworthy to be in its presence. That's a law more stringent than the law of gravity. It's only because of His love that He found a way to satisfy the law and allow us into His presence.

 

[z3ro]

'All the trees of the garden may you eat' they were told, except the death one. Can you show me where they never ate that tree of life?

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

Does fruit die in heaven? There's lots there. I don't know, from my present only experience that seems hard to swallow. But look at the trees in the garden. The tree was still alive, and the fruit was designed to be eaten.

Not unless the fruit was cursed as well. But think about it like this; how are we gaining nutrients from fruit if it is not destroyed? If we don't need the destruction of fruit, why make it necassary to eat?

 

[dad]

This doesn't answer the question. They still had no way of knowing that God was right and the serpent was wrong. They could not have known that disobeying was wrong.

Well, you don't know this. They had no real knowledge of evil, true, but I don't read where they had no clue as to right and wrong, are they supposed to be real clods? They knew and loved Him, and ought to have believed and obeyed. The serpent was allowed, as a test of this. They made a choice, so how can one make a choice if one knows not right from wrong. The knowledge of good and evil was not the ability to know right from wrong. It was choosing the wrong, on purpose, and then, as a result, learning the evil, because they already knew the good!

Sure, the warning was clear. The serpent's offer was also clear. How was Eve to know that it was right to obey God and wrong to believe the serpent?

Because God told them not to do it, and they knew it was wrong to disobey.

 

[nvxplorer]

Because God told them not to do it, and they knew it was wrong to disobey.

“Because I said so!” Yep, that went over really big with me as a child. I learned a lot from those authoritarian decrees, though not what you might think.

 

[dad]

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

To me, it says, in plain english, this
'So God said, behold, now man knows both the good, and the evil, like us. Now, to keep them from eating again from the tree of life, which would give them eternal life, ....we must guard it.

Not unless the fruit was cursed as well. But think about it like this; how are we gaining nutrients from fruit if it is not destroyed? If we don't need the destruction of fruit, why make it necassary to eat?

No, I don't think so. Fruit comes from a live tree, but is meant to be consumed, which completes it's purpose for existance! -Still leaving the tree alive and well, and better for the picking of the fruit. Besides, in heaven, I believe that it is not necassary to eat! We will, and can, but we won't have to.

 

[dad]

“Because I said so!” Yep, that went over really big with me as a child. I learned a lot from those authoritarian decrees, though not what you might think.

Then you could relate to man having chosen the school of hard knocks. If it was a good and loving parent, the instructions would be just for our own good.

 

[Nemoralis]

God doesn't have a choice to change His nature either.

So he's not omnipotent. Besides, my first sentence in the piece you quoted stil stands.

They had no real knowledge of evil, true, but I don't read where they had no clue as to right and wrong, are they supposed to be real clods?

I understand what you are getting at here, and it's close but no cigar. How can you know right from wrong if you don't know good from evil? God is good, and he is right. The snake is evil, and he is wrong. They go hand in hand. God should have given them a complete understanding of it so that Eve would have been more prepared.

They knew and loved Him, and ought to have believed and obeyed.

How did they know to obey? Because God said they should obey. But how did they know that God was right? They didn't because they hadn't eaten of the tree and did not know good from evil. They couldn't distinguish between God's goodness and the snake's evilness.

The knowledge of good and evil was not the ability to know right from wrong.

They go hand in hand. Besides, without the knowledge of good and evil they would have had no way to know that God was good (and should be obeyed) and the snake was evil.

It was choosing the wrong, on purpose, and then, as a result, learning the evil, because they already knew the good!

Yes, I see what you're getting at. But without the knowledge that the snake was evil and God was good, Eve could not have made a proper choice.

Because God told them not to do it, and they knew it was wrong to disobey.

But they did not know that God was good (and right) and the snake was evil (and wrong) because they had not yet eaten of the tree.

Still leaving the tree alive and well, and better for the picking of the fruit

But it kills all of the cells in the fruit as well as (possibly) the seed within the fruit, which is a new organism ready to germinate and grow. Do you believe that there was no death before the fall?

 

[nvxplorer]

Then you could relate to man having chosen the school of hard knocks. If it was a good and loving parent, the instructions would be just for our own good.

Irrelevant. We are inquisitive creatures by nature. We’re not satisfied with simple authoritarian commands. We want to know why. This has nothing to do with good and evil. On the contrary, it is our questioning nature that allows us to learn. Adam and Eve were punished for being inquisitive. One cannot determine if a parent is good and loving by blindly obeying commands.

 

[dad]

Irrelevant. We are inquisitive creatures by nature. We’re not satisfied with simple authoritarian commands. We want to know why. This has nothing to do with good and evil. On the contrary, it is our questioning nature that allows us to learn. Adam and Eve were punished for being inquisitive. One cannot determine if a parent is good and loving by blindly obeying commands.

Oh yes one can, if one doesn't want to die, like the loving parent warned us about for our own good. Being inquisitive doesn't mean we have to play on the freeway cause we were told not to. If He was so authoritarian, He could have made them obey, or got rid of the tree, it's not like He was unable to stop it. It was a test. They had every chance, and every reason to obey. They could explore all they wanted, save this one thing. It wasn't a free for all, almost, though. It wasn't free reign, it was free will, to choose to obey, and do the right thing, or not, with the consequences. They were intelligent.

 

[Ophis]

It wasn't free reign, it was free will, to choose to obey, and do the right thing, or not, with the consequences. They were intelligent.

How could they choose to do the right thing when they didn't know the difference between right and wrong? They were not intelligent in that respect. They were unable to decide not to do wrong, if they did not know what "wrong" was.

 

[nvxplorer]

Oh yes one can, if one doesn't want to die

Don’t you claim that there was no death before the fall? I understand death because it is all around me. Adam and Eve had no concept of death.

 

[awstar]

So he's not omnipotent. Besides, my first sentence in the piece you quoted stil stands.

He cannot lie either. (Nor can He stop loving you) But that doesn't take away His omnipotence.

But it kills all of the cells in the fruit as well as (possibly) the seed within the fruit, which is a new organism ready to germinate and grow. Do you believe that there was no death before the fall?

Life is in the blood. Only creatures with blood truly live and truly die.

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

 

[dad]

How could they choose to do the right thing when they didn't know the difference between right and wrong? They were not intelligent in that respect. They were unable to decide not to do wrong, if they did not know what "wrong" was.

Says who? The bible just says they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowlege of good and evil. They already knew good, it was all there was. The thing they learned, really with doing the wrong thing was evil. Not wrong and right, good and evil, there is a difference. WE have a conscience, like a little angel quietly speaking to us, like the voice of God. Then, they had woofers and tweeters as well, in that He spoke right to them! Now, we have the little angel, but also a little devil trying to get us still to listen to it's coice, instead of God's! We still have choice. I say they knew what was wrong or right.

 

[Mystman]

While I apreciate everyone's imput, I find it interesting to note that nobody really awnsered the question

(a few of you attempted, but still...)

I'll give some more in depth responses when I'm fully awake.

 

[Mystman]

The fall gives us insight to God's holiness probably first and foremost. Isaiah probably said it best when he encountered God in a vision.
...
Now Isaiah by our standards was a pretty good guy. But that’s because we only compare him to ourselves. Probably the biggest change a christian will undergo upon conversion is the realization of his sinfulness.
...
Freedom (libertarian) pretty much solves the problem of evil argument which is basically what you’re arguing. God’s attribute of justice is as important as his attribute of love. He created man in his own image and gave man (Adam and all men essentially) a choice. He cannot be held responsible for our choices.
...
The curse of God caused death, which enables a new beginning. Man was separated from God after the fall. The only way back to God is through death and a willingness to be reunited with Him. It’s very logical.
...
That He is holy, just, and loving. He suffered that we (including you) might be redeemed.

Eve eats apple. -> billions of humans and other creatures die painfull deaths -> all perfectly logical.

right.

This thread was for explaining WHY it is perfectly logical. As in, begin with the basics (God's plan), then explain how the Fall fits into God's plan, and the explain how that fits with His personality.

You just said "God is just and it's very logical".

pff

 

[Mystman]

It's an answer to:

2. How does this reconcile with God's plan for the world; how does it reflect on God's personality?

It describes what God finds pleasing and who is included in His plan.

Fair enough. What about the rest of the question?

 

[Mystman]

can u tell me how it should work out? what is fair? and explain to me what your basis for "fairness" is. remember, it has to be applicable to all ppl for all time.

You're confusing 2 points of view. You are saying that situation 2 is worse based on the point of view of atheism. Then you say there can't be a God because it is so unfair. You start with 1 assumption to cut down another. If God is real and a 5 year old girl dies of cancer but has accepted Jesus as her savior, then there is an eternity of joy for her. It's not so unfair. Besides, why should she live longer? Can u give me a reason for that?

(since the rest of your post was basically "I'm not part of the "many christians" you mentioned in the OP!", I'll just respond to this, before we get another argument like in the "Flesh eating before the Flood" thread )

1. There is no universal concept of "fairness", agreed.

2. Little girl dies painfull death = little girl not so happy before her death + parents not so happy after her death. As for the why she should live longer: why should we live at all? That's why I tried (....) to get a "full" explanation. God's plan obviously includes us having life. Why? Well, none of you have told me yet. But if God's plan is something like "preparing people for the afterlife", what does that say for the little girl? Just 5 years old, atheist, and died from cancer. Well joy. 1 way ticket to eternal torment because Eve ate an apple.