Garden of Eden

[alang1216]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

 

[shoshi]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

We are born innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent virgins until they defied HaShem. They ate from the tree of knowledge. So when we have knowledge we lose our innocence? We become aware but no longer innocent?

 

[shoshi]

Some say this is where the Garden was. Now it is a nature park.

 

[Ringtone]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

We are born innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent virgins until they defied HaShem. They ate from the tree of knowledge. So when we have knowledge we lose our innocence? We become aware but no longer innocent?

Adam and Eve were virgins until they defied God? Where did you get that notion? Jus wondering.

 

[shoshi]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

We are born innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent virgins until they defied HaShem. They ate from the tree of knowledge. So when we have knowledge we lose our innocence? We become aware but no longer innocent?

Adam and Eve were virgins until they defied God? Where did you get that notion? Jus wondering.

After eating the fruit they realized they were naked. They later had children. Only after they realized they were naked.

 

[Ringtone]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

We are born innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent virgins until they defied HaShem. They ate from the tree of knowledge. So when we have knowledge we lose our innocence? We become aware but no longer innocent?

Adam and Eve were virgins until they defied God? Where did you get that notion? Jus wondering.

After eating the fruit they realized they were naked. They later had children. Only after they realized they were naked.

Actually, they were commanded to procreate before the fall.

 

[shoshi]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

We are born innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent virgins until they defied HaShem. They ate from the tree of knowledge. So when we have knowledge we lose our innocence? We become aware but no longer innocent?

Adam and Eve were virgins until they defied God? Where did you get that notion? Jus wondering.

After eating the fruit they realized they were naked. They later had children. Only after they realized they were naked.

Actually, they were commanded to procreate before the fall.

That would be difficult if you do not know if you are naked or not. No sexual attraction.

 

[Ringtone]

Does the story tell us something other than do not defy God and do not trust the snake? Is it saying that if we humans seek after knowledge we become smart but lose innocence? Smart but no longer innocent.

What does it mean if man was made in God's image but man was not knowledgeable?

We are born innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent virgins until they defied HaShem. They ate from the tree of knowledge. So when we have knowledge we lose our innocence? We become aware but no longer innocent?

Adam and Eve were virgins until they defied God? Where did you get that notion? Jus wondering.

After eating the fruit they realized they were naked. They later had children. Only after they realized they were naked.

Actually, they were commanded to procreate before the fall.

That would be difficult if you do not know if you are naked or not. No sexual attraction.

Well, given, once again, that God commanded them to procreate before the fall, what you're claiming doesn't make sense. Of course, they were sexaully attracted to each other before the fall., but, apparently, did not produce children until after the fall, which tells us that they disobeyed God shortly after God commanded them to procreate. There is nothing evil about nakedness, sexual relations or procreation in and of themselves. You're missing the real point of the narrative here, clearly.

 

[surada]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

 

[norwegen]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

 

[surada]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

 

[norwegen]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

 

[surada]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

 

[Ringtone]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

Interesting how you claim to have absolute knowledge about something you cannot possibly prove to know.

 

[surada]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

Interesting how you claim to have absolute knowledge about something you cannot possibly prove to know.

Who are you talking to ? The verses I quoted are from Genesis.

 

[Ringtone]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

Interesting how you claim to have absolute knowledge about something you cannot possibly prove to know.

Who are you talking to ? The verses I quoted are from Genesis.

You made the following claims:

"Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis."

 

[surada]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

Interesting how you claim to have absolute knowledge about something you cannot possibly prove to know.

Who are you talking to ? The verses I quoted are from Genesis.

You made the following claims:

"Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis."

Yes, there are thousands of clay tablets in Dilmun and thousands more in Ugarit (modern Latakia) that predate Genesis by a thousand years.

 

[Ringtone]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

Interesting how you claim to have absolute knowledge about something you cannot possibly prove to know.

Who are you talking to ? The verses I quoted are from Genesis.

You made the following claims:

"Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis."

Yes, there are thousands of clay tablets in Dilmun and thousands more in Ugarit (modern Latakia) that predate Genesis by a thousand years.

I'm well aware of that. What does that prove relative to your claims?

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

The beginning of the Bible is showing the world we know started from God's perfect design with what God's will for us, God's creatures, is, with no hurt or harm, killing or death, in what God meant for us, and it is a model to us, which humanity fell from with the rebellion against God in taking a fruit forbidden to them, though we do not really know that fruit, and a curse starting in the world, and growing with continued sin from that. We should not depend on civilization, but grow food and things from the earth, even now by the sweat of our labor, according to what is meant for us, not involved in things ruining this world. And killing animals to use is not needed for anything better.

 

[surada]

The Garden of Eden story is an attempt to explain the problem of evil in the world. Why God seemingly does not care if we suffer. Thing is, it's all a set up. God made the Tree and God made the serpent and God set Adam and Eve up for failure.

I always thought the story of the Garden of Eden was the emergence of an agrarian culture from the hunter-gatherers.. and the big sin was not trusting in God's providence. Remember Cain offered grains and vegetables, Abel offered meats.

In any case, I like the idea that it was in Dilmun. (Bahrain)

First, the Genesis creation story does not present a transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. Abel did not sacrifice an animal that he hunted; he sacrificed one that he raised.

Second, this hypothesis has no connection to the rest of the Old Testament, or even the rest of Genesis. Just like a literal forbidden fruit has no connection to the rest of the story. The Bible does not go on about the evils of hunting and gathering, and it does not go on about a literal forbidden fruit.

So many people take the first four chapters of Genesis completely out of context. No wonder they're confused.

The context of the Old Testament is idolatry. That theme runs throughout the narrative. Man fell not from biological death but from spiritual death. He became a living creature not when God formed him from dust but when He breathed life into him.

Then he forsook God; he died. After his death - after his condemnation - all the licentiousness of the unrepentant heart unfolded in the human drama as illustrated in the pages of the Old Testament.

That's the context. The Garden of Eden is not a stand-alone story separate and distinct from the rest of the Bible.

I always thought Abel hunted as well as tended livestock and helped his mother with the cooking.

3:17 ... cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ...
3:18 ... and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, ...
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground ...
4:2 And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

I'm not sure where you get that from those verses.

At any rate, idols came between God and man. That's the Old Testament narrative, and even what the creation story itself says (the first creation story, I should say (the Bible tells of subsequent new creations)).

Eve is life; that's what her name means, and Genesis says she is the mother of all living (3:20). After she ate of the tree of knowledge, she became aware of her sin (3:15). She knew she had sinned. She acquired knowledge of evil (3:22). She died.

I know.. Just about every culture has a tree of life and a tree of knowledge.

Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis.

Interesting how you claim to have absolute knowledge about something you cannot possibly prove to know.

Who are you talking to ? The verses I quoted are from Genesis.

You made the following claims:

"Whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi.

Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth. One that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant.

Interesting how the two stories from Israel and Judah were cobbled together in Genesis."

Yes, there are thousands of clay tablets in Dilmun and thousands more in Ugarit (modern Latakia) that predate Genesis by a thousand years.

I'm well aware of that. What does that prove relative to your claims?

Those verses were from Genesis.. I never thought of it as a story about Idolatry. I'll give that some thought.