Interpreting Genesis - did Eve really sin?

[PJM]

=CosmicMuse;8244082]I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.

My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

There is a flaw in your understanding. While Adam and Eve were “perfect” part of this Perfection included the same 'Spiritual Attribuues that you, I, and God have. A Mind, A Intellect, a Freewill. They MUST of had these these because 1. we do 2. they are required in order to sin 3. God in fairness could not have prohibited them from eating of the TREE without UNDERSTANDING WHY.

Having yet to choose evil over GOOD, in no way indicates that they did not understand what the fruit of their personal choice woul be. NO! They were perfect and like Satan before His Fall from Grace lacked ONLY One Thing. Actually being GOD! And that was their desire “to be like God” EQUAL TOO GOD. Certainly they understood the sin.

Gen. 2:17 “ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,*** for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." *** [speaking of Spirital DEATH: MORTAL SIN.

Gen.3: 1-6 “Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" ***And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”* But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.”

While they had not received knowledge of ALL Good and ALL Evil, clearly they were warned that this was something they ought not do. AND IT WAS the ONLY thing God asked of them for all that He had granted them.

This was the idential desire of Satans HEART and what motivated Him to challange God.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[fall_fox]

As for today’s interpretation of the Bible, Adam and Eve are “Geschichten”, tales with an morale, the hebrews call it “midrash”, like the parables of Jesus Christ.

I have been told that the old testament was written in direct responce to a story in Babylon. This was during the Babylonian Captivity, The story was about an evil Queen that had created the world. She had two sons and she was going to kill them, but they got her first. The old testament was written to teach the Israelis about God, and influence them to live as they should.
It troubled me and it still does. What are we Catholics to do with Adam & Eve? What are we to do about Original Sin? What are we to do about the sacrament of Baptism?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This would mean that everything favoured by God is good, and what he forbids is evil, instead of the other way around - God favours intrinsically good things and forbids evil things.

It is not so much that God favors what is good because it is good, or that good is good because God favors it. Both of those have problems. On the one hand, God is subject to a moral code. But this does not work because then God isn’t Supreme in every sense of the word. And on the other hand, God’s rules - if they are seen as rules - are arbitrary, which is also problematic.

But the more fundamental problem with taking either of these stances is that we see God as the same sort of being we are, except one who either makes the rules or follows them quickly. It is not just that God is good as an adjective; it is that God is good as a noun, goodness itself.

So it’s more than that we can know if a thing is wrong or right according to whether it is or is not contrary to God’s will, or that God only wills things which are right but that the two really are in fact the same absolute thing.

The problem is, then, how could Eve know how to avoid sin, without reason to guide her?

She had reason. God said don’t do this. So the correct action, knowing who God is, is to not do this. Absolutely nothing else comes into play.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I have been told that the old testament was written in direct responce to a story in Babylon. This was during the Babylonian Captivity, The story was about an evil Queen that had created the world. She had two sons and she was going to kill them, but they got her first. The old testament was written to teach the Israelis about God, and influence them to live as they should.
It troubled me and it still does. What are we Catholics to do with Adam & Eve? What are we to do about Original Sin? What are we to do about the sacrament of Baptism?

I wouldn’t worry overly much about why a given book was written. God may have had specific reasons for revealing what he revealed at a particular time, or in response to an incorrect idea, but it is still very much revelation. (Though it may or may not be literal.)

 

[Ghosty]

The point of the term “knowing Good and Evil” isn’t that they had no knowledge of evil, but had no experience of evil. Everything in the world was good, so they couldn’t have personal experience of evil, but they could know what evil was as God explained it to them. By eating the fruit they came to “know evil” on a personal, intimate level, much as a husband and wife “knowing” eachother indicates intimacy.

In short, they knew of Good and Evil prior to eating the fruit; if they didn’t then Eve could not have responded the way she did to the serpent. Therefore she was indeed morally culpable for her action.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Usagi]

The Catholic view of Adam and Eve is not that they were ignorant primitives, but that as unfallen humans they were gifted with intellect and wisdom far above any that we see in their fallen descendants (us).

This notion of the First Parents as superhumans is likely pre-Catholic in origin, as I have heard of Jewish legends that present the couple as being hundreds of miles tall – no doubt a metaphor for their general greatness compared to us. Meltzerboy, do you have any further information on that front?

Thus, the Adam and Eve story should not be interpreted in a way that makes A & E out to be ignorant or lacking in reason.

Usagi

 

[meltzerboy]

The Catholic view of Adam and Eve is not that they were ignorant primitives, but that as unfallen humans they were gifted with intellect and wisdom far above any that we see in their fallen descendants (us).

This notion of the First Parents as superhumans is likely pre-Catholic in origin, as I have heard of Jewish legends that present the couple as being hundreds of miles tall – no doubt a metaphor for their general greatness compared to us. Meltzerboy, do you have any further information on that front?

Thus, the Adam and Eve story should not be interpreted in a way that makes A & E out to be ignorant or lacking in reason.

Usagi

Good point about the superior intellect of Adam and Eve. Jewish legend says that Adam stretched from the ground to the sky; Eve was slightly smaller. Also, Adam lived till 930 years old. As you say, this must be taken as metaphor for their greatness. Also, wasn’t it a fig tree from which Eve ate? How did that fruit transform to being an apple? And what, if anything, I wonder, is the significance of a fig tree? Of course, there is much debate regarding whether there were really two trees in the Garden of Eden or only one, as well as what exactly the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge is. Finally, I believe, according to Jewish (and Christian?) interpretation, the serpent was not Satan but his assistant; why do you think Satan did not tempt Eve directly?

 

[fhansen]

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that’s a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything “good.” There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

Yes, it could probably be said that disobedience of God-misalignment with His will-is evil.

I think the story of the fall can be read as the account of man’s communion with God being broken by rejecting His authority, thereby rejecting His very reality, This is the essence and beginning of man’s lack of faith. They knew Him-and His superiority-and yet were radically free to dismiss Him and His rightful, deserved authority. I think our purpose here on earth is to gain the wisdom, after experiencing-or knowing-good and evil-that will cause us to recognize the reality of God and of His overwhelming goodness-and run to this Goodness, rejecting all evil. To place His wisdom above our own, to reinstate Him as our God again.

In this sense, perhaps it could be looked upon almost as if nature, itself, exiled man from the garden as surely, and in somewhat the same direct manner, as heat from a flame causes pain-as a natural consequence, but one we can ultimately learn from.

 

[ricmat]

Yes, it could probably be said that disobedience of God-misalignment with His will-is evil.

I agree. God and his will is all good. Evil is the absence of God and his will (i.e. Hell).

 

[ricmat]

Of possible interest to those posting in this thread…

Has anyone ever read “Perelandra” by CS Lewis?

It’s the 2nd of a 3 book series, and deals extensively with a “fall.” It makes for interesting reading and gave me a new perspective on exactly what “no knowledge of evil” could mean. In any case, it’s a good book!!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Hmm, yes I know, and I know that the Catholic Church is happy to take Genesis as a metaphor or symbolic tale. I guess I just don’t understand how…I know the Catholic Church firmly believes that all of humanity is descended from two people, but I’m not sure how this ties in. Nor do I know how this story can be separated from the basic framework, which is:

1. People are pure/sinless.
2. People disobey God.
3. They learn of Good and Evil as a result.
4. Are punished for their disobedience.
5. Original sin is spread to all descendants.
   And of course, the Bible is undoubtedly correct in all spiritual matters. I’d love someone to give an alternate interpretation of Genesis?

I know the Catholic Church firmly believes that all of humanity is descended from two people, but I’m not sure how this ties in.

After Darwin, not anymore. Men on Earth are here for millions of years, no doubt.

Now your number 2 and 3 maybe it is the contrary. People saw that there was evil that came from our ancestors, for instance, if parents are drunks, the kids are malformed. Cause lead to cause, so that should be the first one to sin. The Scriptures called them Adam and Eve and according to Scriptures, that happened 5 000 years ago what is impossible from the Scientific Data. So, the reasoning was: “If sin is widespread, sin must come from our 2 ancestors!”. And then the apple (?), the snake and so on.

The Apostles had the same idea when they asked Jesus about a handicapped person: “Was he who sinned or someone else” for he was paying for some sin. Jesus did not clarify.

And Jesus said clearly that he was dying for the sins of Men.

I think your conclusions are right. Now you have to connect with the scientific data.

No easy task. I would summon my way:

1. 
   *]God created Man and Woman
   *]Humankind is sinner. Man is sinner by nature. But it is not natural. And we do not know why.
   *]Jesus died for our sins. Why The Father wanted Him suffer such an horrible death if a prayer was enough to save Humanity, is something that haunts me as I did not want Him to suffer so much for me.
   *]Scientific data shows quite clearly that humans and primates are relatives.
   *]The Bible says clearly that Man is Spirit, a Soul, something that Science tends to forget as they say it is none of their business.
   *]Much of this is mistery for me.
   
   God Bless

 

[grannymh]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can’t think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don’t see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn’t a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Catholicism teaches that Adam and Eve knew what sin was and thus they were responsible for their actions. I do realize that many people, including Catholics, do not know how to interpret the first three chapters of Genesis in regard to humanity and sin.

Those interested in Catholic teachings regarding Adam should study paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
or
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[benedictus2]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can’t think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don’t see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn’t a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

I haven’t read the other responses so this may have already been explained before.

The knowledge of good and evil that the serpent speaks of means that if they ate the fruit, then they can determine what is good and evil. Up to then, God told them what to do and what not do. By eating of the tree, then God cannot do that anymore because they can decided what is good and what is evil.

In short, what Eve wanted to do is to become God. Eve’s sin was pride - this desire to cling to deity.

They know the prohibition so they know that if it has been prohibited it must not be done. So yes, they sinned because they knowingly disobeyed God in their desire to become God and thus elevate themselves to His level.

To this day, all sins are rooted in this - our desire to become God.

I think however, that the desire to be like God is inherent or built in to us because God has - from the beginning - destined us for divinization. But it is something that must be accepted from God as a gift and not something that must be grabbed at because we think we are entitled to it.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have been told that the old testament was written in direct responce to a story in Babylon. This was during the Babylonian Captivity, The story was about an evil Queen that had created the world. She had two sons and she was going to kill them, but they got her first. The old testament was written to teach the Israelis about God, and influence them to live as they should.
It troubled me and it still does. What are we Catholics to do with Adam & Eve? What are we to do about Original Sin? What are we to do about the sacrament of Baptism?

You are not alone. This thing troubled me most than anything else.
So, I had Adam and Eve and I was comfortable with them, they sinned, it was, as ever, the woman’s fault (remember Pandora), we sin because of them, the baptism cleans us, Jesus came to save us, all was in place.
Then came Darwin and the scientists say that we are here for millions of years, so they threw pool Old Adam and Eve through the windows and we, it seems, were left empty ended. And they were a nice couple, there hidden in a Magnificent Paradise, lions and cows and sheep all together and he worked and it was a pleasure to work, so I saw in many Church Pictures.
Before, we thought that the Scriptures were made by inspired authors than sat down at a table and, full of the Holy Spirit, with enthusiasm and non-stop, wrote the book in one inspired station like Haendel wrote the Messiah. It is a romantic view. The Romantics had the idea of Literature as Inspiration of the Poet or Author who wrote the literary piece as possessed by the Muse who inspired Him.

Now, we do not think it is like that anymore.
What you say about the origins of the Genesis is a theory that may be true.

But, what happened with Original Sin? The tale is a reflection of the People of God about the situation of Man on Earth:

1. 
   *]It realizes that Man is a sinner, ok, any doubt? Just look around and you reach the same concusion even if you had not read the Bible.
   *]That we somehow incluence each other: Parents influence children, neighbors influence neigblor, friends influence friends. So the idea that sin in contagious
   *]a certian idea tha we do not know in the preent where it cme from
   *]So the Scriptures writers reasoned that if Parents influenced Children to sin, there should be a First Sinner, and they gaven them Names and places
   *]a certain feeling that sin is not natural. The Psychologist Car Jung called archtypes the structures that belong to every culture of the world any time. The Archetype of the Lost Paradise is one of them. We feel that the state of sin is not our “real”, “natural” way. That we should be pure. So the Romans ha d the myth of the 4 ages, from gold to iron, to say that mankind is decaying; the greeks the myth of Pandora, Prometeus (who went to steal the fire from Heaven) see in Internet, Jews, the Adam and Eve Paradise, a tribe I studied had the following story: before, heaven and earth were connected by a liana (how beautiful!). Men went and up and down from Heaven to earth and all was good. One day, the woman (alwasy the woman !!) delayed the coming back longer than the husband expected and the man, furious, cut the liana. then, Heaven and Earth began separating and we lost Heaven forever.
   
   So, Adam and Eve are not to be thrown out of the window. I totally believe the message it transmits as I should believe Jesus’ parables with no need that the prodigal son, Lazarus, the beggar (not the resurrected!), and so on, were real persons.
   
   We think that because Adam is the beginning of the Bible, she should be listened first.
   
   No. The first and last is Jesus Christ.
   
   He told us that we are sinners, that He came to save us from sin and lead us to His and Our Father in Heaven. That He died in the Cross for us and for our sins and that we should eat his Flesh and drink His Blood.
   
   I trust what he said and He is the Church on which we, as branches, are connected.
   
   Having said that, for me it is enough. All those distinctions from the Debates during Reformation lead us nowhere. Whether or not Adam existed, it does not matter for the Faith in Jesus. I look forward not backwards. What matters to me is who saved me not who was guilty of the first sin.
   
   The Faith in Jesus is fundamental. The faith in Adam not, it is nothing compared with the faith in Jesus.

 

[Benadam]

They both knew what death was. Adam named the animals so he understood their nature. There was no obstruction to Grace, their wills were not enslaved to passions. They understood that they were replacing God’s role in their lives as judge of what was good or not good. To judge the forbidden fruit as something good meant they had judged God as someone evil. They were not committing an act in ignorance or weakness of flesh. They were committing an act in willfull disobedience because in their sight God was a tyrant.

 

[Benadam]

Then came Darwin and the scientists say that we are here for millions of years, so they threw pool Old Adam and Eve through the windows and we, it seems, were left empty ended. And they were a nice couple, there hidden in a Magnificent Paradise, lions and cows and sheep all together and he worked and it was a pleasure to work, so I saw in many Church Pictures.
Before, we thought that the Scriptures were made by inspired authors than sat down at a table and, full of the Holy Spirit, with enthusiasm and non-stop, wrote the book in one inspired station like Haendel wrote the Messiah. It is a romantic view. The Romantics had the idea of Literature as Inspiration of the Poet or Author who wrote the literary piece as possessed by the Muse who inspired Him.

 

[Benadam]

I think however, that the desire to be like God is inherent or built in to us because God has - from the beginning - destined us for divinization. But it is something that must be accepted from God as a gift and not something that must be grabbed at because we think we are entitled to it.

I agree. And followiing that line of thinking leads one to wonder if the fruit of the tree of judgement was forbidden because it was meant to be eaten after our earthly lives had prepared us to recieve it. It is food reserved for eternal life since life that proceeds toward an end is not yet fit to judge. It is the fruit reserved for human life in heaven. Isn’t it a truth of our faith that humans will judge angels?

 

[JD27076]

God told them NOT to eat from the Tree. But Satan tempted them into eating from it. So they DID have knowledge not to eat from that one tree. So yes, its a sin.

 

[benedictus2]

God told them NOT to eat from the Tree. But Satan tempted them into eating from it. So they DID have knowledge not to eat from that one tree. So yes, its a sin.

In your signature, I think the word should be netherworld. I had visions of dutch people storming the church

 

[razredge]

My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).).

This is a symbolic story, not meant to be read literally - as you can see if you do read it literally, it makes so sense