Why did Adam eat?

[The_Serpent]

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.” Genesis 3:6

Why did Adam eat of the fruit, after Eve had ate it? Didn’t he observe a change in Eve since she ate first; which would have given him pause to not eat?

 

[fhansen]

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.” Genesis 3:6

Why did Adam eat of the fruit, after Eve had ate it? Didn’t he observe a change in Eve since she ate first; which would have given him pause to not eat?

Because he willed to eat. And that is truly the extent of what we know, according to Anselm, I believe. He chose disobedience, perhaps due to foolishness, peer pressure (wanting to remain in league with the woman, flesh of his flesh), lack of appreciation for and understanding of his need for God, of the perfection of His will. In any case man preferred himself to God, wanting to be like God but apart from and not in accordance with Him according to the Catechism.

We need to learn the opposite of what Adam thought; that’s why we’re here: “Apart from Me you can do nothing” Jesus tells us in John 15.

 

[vames]

Being human, both Adam and Eve were attracted to the same things. He was tempted because he noticed, like Eve, that the tree was “good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold”. If he considered that the tree is ugly and the apple is disgusting, he would have rejected Eve.
The apple didn’t have magical powers, so Eve surely didn’t turn into a hag on a broom after eating it

 

[Humbly_Hopeful]

I think the question is more along the line of why did Adam not try to stop Eve from eating the fruit? It’s almost like a part of him being in the wrong with Eve was being silent in the face of sin consuming Eve, but I am still working on reading/understanding the Bible and could be very wrong about this…

 

[10gr8kids]

Sometimes it takes a little while to see the effects of sin.

 

[ellzeena]

The Old Testament is full of metaphors and such. Were Adam and Eve literal Humans? yes. Did they “eat” of some “tree”? That has to be metaphorical. Latest scientific contribution:

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed Thursday, Aug. 1, in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men’s most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient “Adam” and ancient “Eve” probably didn’t even live near each other, let alone mate. [The 10 Biggest Mysteries of the First Humans]

“Those two people didn’t know each other,” said Melissa Wilson Sayres, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/02/genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered/#ixzz2b24HX4lO"

I was pondering this great mystery today. While, I might add, in Eucharistic adoration. What was it in those two Humans in particular, those two who ARE the “adam” and “eve”, that made them choose something God did not intend, and what was that choice? It certainly had nothing to do with any apple or any fruit of any tree, it was far more profound than that, perhaps a choice that is intimately tied to their HUMANITY, a choice other creatures CANNOT make. (I can tell you, as an animal behaviorist, that other creatures DO make choices, that they think and plan, that some even have self awareness, so therefore there is something absolutely unique about the “choice” made, independently, by these two Humans at about the same time in history that other creatures would NOT make because of their basic innocence.) I don’t have an answer to this, I just have the question, as you do.

WHAT was it? A need to “know more” in direct contradiction to what God has made available for us to know? But aren’t we STILL doing that via “science” and technology? WHAT is the “sin”, the original sin (as named by St. Augustine, by the way, not the Lord Jesus). Anyone have any well thought out ideas? I’ve just begun to think on this, so far not any real guesstimate.

 

[aemcpa]

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.” Genesis 3:6

Why did Adam eat of the fruit, after Eve had ate it? Didn’t he observe a change in Eve since she ate first; which would have given him pause to not eat?

Perhaps since he had not eaten of the fruit, he lacked the knowledge to be able to observe the change in Eve.

 

[vames]

What was it in those two Humans in particular, those two who ARE the “adam” and “eve”, that made them choose something God did not intend, and what was that choice? It certainly had nothing to do with any apple or any fruit of any tree, it was far more profound than that, perhaps a choice that is intimately tied to their HUMANITY, a choice other creatures CANNOT make.

IMO it had everything to do with the tree, because this tree and its apples could tempt only humans - that’s why it was placed on the garden and why the humans were warned to avoid it.

One of the most striking things about this story is how Adam and Eve totally identify themselves with their instinctive wish to eat the apple, like small kids before a cake: kids grab it and swallow it without thinking about anything else, because it looks good, it tastes good, it’s food for kids! When Adam and Eve actually saw the tree, they instantly forgot what God and the snake had told them; none of them has a moment to reflect: “wait, what if the snake tells us lies? God told us that we would die if we eat!” or “let’s eat it against God’s will, don’t you want us to be like God?”.

There are other characters in the Bible who commit crimes or various other trespassings and then “wake up” and say: what have I done?? There’s Jesus who asks the Father to forgive people “for they don’t know what they are doing”. But in these cases, their sins don’t have to do with something destined for humans: God didn’t destine humans to kill and torture each other, BUT He did destine them to know good from evil. That’s why the story of Adam and Eve can be interpreted in various ways.

One can say that in fact God wanted to give them the knowledge of good and evil, but later, as a reward for their obedience, an attestation of maturity. Another can say that God couldn’t really ask them to abstain from the tree as a moral choice, as long as they didn’t have the means to distinguish good from evil (they had only the elementary fear of death - “when you eat from it you will certainly die”). That’s why some Christian thinkers - see St Irenaeus - concluded that the first humans weren’t created perfect, like St Augustine says, but they were like small children who had to grow up. So the succession isn’t Original perfection - Fall - Living a life of condemnation - Jesus comes to atone for man’s sin by His death; rather, the succession is Original imperfection - Costly mistake - Growing up as becoming closer to God - Jesus becomes a man to unite man with God.

Further, others can say it’s impossible to understand why God put the temptation in the way of these humans, knowing that they would be naturally and irresistibly attracted by the tree and knowing that they in fact lacked a real discernment - remember, they were only told that eating apple = death and only after eating they realized they were naked (shame as a moral reaction).

That’s why some choose to turn the story on its head to make it more logical: there are Gnostics who imagine that the snake was Jesus who came to liberate humanity from the tyranny of an imperfect god and to show them the way towards the real divine knowledge destined for them by the Father. Meanwhile, others leave the story as it is and just reflect on the actual lack (or narrowness) of choices which defines human existence. Kafka has a cynical version of this tragic story about lack of choices, with the frightening, insurmountable distance between God and man, a man who can’t understand God regardless of all his efforts, obedience, prayers and hope:
kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html

 

[Nita]

Perhaps since he had not eaten of the fruit, he lacked the knowledge to be able to observe the change in Eve.

And another possibility is that perhaps there was no change in Eve until after Adam also disobeyed and ate of the forbidden fruit. The primary responsibility for Original Sin rests on Adam as he was the first human and the one to whom, according to Scripture, the command was given. Scripture doesn’t say whether Eve’s knowledge of the command came from God or from Adam.

 

[Nita]

IMO it had everything to do with the tree, because this tree and its apples could tempt only humans - that’s why it was placed on the garden and why the humans were warned to avoid it.

One of the most striking things about this story is how Adam and Eve totally identify themselves with their instinctive wish to eat the apple, like small kids before a cake: kids grab it and swallow it without thinking about anything else, because it looks good, it tastes good, it’s food for kids! When Adam and Eve actually saw the tree, they instantly forgot what God and the snake had told them; none of them has a moment to reflect: “wait, what if the snake tells us lies? God told us that we would die if we eat!” or “let’s eat it against God’s will, don’t you want us to be like God?”.

There are other characters in the Bible who commit crimes or various other trespassings and then “wake up” and say: what have I done?? There’s Jesus who asks the Father to forgive people “for they don’t know what they are doing”. But in these cases, their sins don’t have to do with something destined for humans: God didn’t destine humans to kill and torture each other, BUT He did destine them to know good from evil. That’s why the story of Adam and Eve can be interpreted in various ways.

One can say that in fact God wanted to give them the knowledge of good and evil, but later, as a reward for their obedience, an attestation of maturity. Another can say that God couldn’t really ask them to abstain from the tree as a moral choice, as long as they didn’t have the means to distinguish good from evil (they had only the elementary fear of death - “when you eat from it you will certainly die”). That’s why some Christian thinkers - see St Irenaeus - concluded that the first humans weren’t created perfect, like St Augustine says, but they were like small children who had to grow up. So the succession isn’t Original perfection - Fall - Living a life of condemnation - Jesus comes to atone for man’s sin by His death; rather, the succession is Original imperfection - Costly mistake - Growing up as becoming closer to God - Jesus becomes a man to unite man with God.

Further, others can say it’s impossible to understand why God put the temptation in the way of these humans, knowing that they would be naturally and irresistibly attracted by the tree and knowing that they in fact lacked a real discernment - remember, they were only told that eating apple = death and only after eating they realized they were naked (shame as a moral reaction).

That’s why some choose to turn the story on its head to make it more logical: there are Gnostics who imagine that the snake was Jesus who came to liberate humanity from the tyranny of an imperfect god and to show them the way towards the real divine knowledge destined for them by the Father. Meanwhile, others leave the story as it is and just reflect on the actual lack (or narrowness) of choices which defines human existence. Kafka has a cynical version of this tragic story about lack of choices, with the frightening, insurmountable distance between God and man, a man who can’t understand God regardless of all his efforts, obedience, prayers and hope:
kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html

There’s nothing in Scripture or Church teaching to even indicate the forbidden fruit was the fruit from an apple tree. Gen.2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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.” Some artists have chosen to paint it that way; easier to paint an apple than try to figure out how to paint a fruit called “knowledge of good and evil”?

 

[Nita]

Because he willed to eat. And that is truly the extent of what we know, according to Anselm, I believe. He chose disobedience, perhaps due to foolishness, peer pressure (wanting to remain in league with the woman, flesh of his flesh), lack of appreciation for and understanding of his need for God, of the perfection of His will.** In any case man preferred** himself to God, wanting to be like God but apart from and not in accordance with Him according to the Catechism…

The bolded sentence would certainly agree with the temptation as Satan put it to Eve:
Gen 3:4* But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” *

 

[vames]

Some artists have chosen to paint it that way; easier to paint an apple than try to figure out how to paint a fruit called “knowledge of good and evil”?

I used “apple” in a purely conventional way, of course I don’t think it was an actual apple The “apple” from popular culture is just a way to add concreteness to the whole picture and to represent the atractiveness of the fruit - “good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold”.

 

[ellzeena]

I used “apple” in a purely conventional way, of course I don’t think it was an actual apple The “apple” from popular culture is just a way to add concreteness to the whole picture and to represent the atractiveness of the fruit - “good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold”.

It certainly was not an apple, that’s a metaphor, but for what? And as science has uncovered, among all Human-like creatures there appeared, at the same time in different locations (according to science), two who were “different”: one male, one female, which came first? Well, one argues the female must have done since the male carried the same mitochondria, identical. So what does this mean? I have no idea. There was no food involved, of that I’m sure; God’s command not to “eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” might also be a metaphor as is the snake. Yes perhaps animals could speak (telepathically), they can now (believe me, I know, and it’s weird when it happens); but how could a snake convince the only true “Human” to eat an apple? She must have been quite stupid. And now we come to the crux of the matter; her naivete, this must have had something to do with doubt. All of a sudden, “Adam” and “Eve” arrived at a “place” in time, a moment, where they doubted God.

 

[vames]

how could a snake convince the only true “Human” to eat an apple? She must have been quite stupid. And now we come to the crux of the matter; her naivete, this must have had something to do with doubt. All of a sudden, “Adam” and “Eve” arrived at a “place” in time, a moment, where they doubted God.

The biblical story tells us it was a fruit, so I discussed the story in its own terms: with an actual Adam and an actual Eve, an actual snake and an actual tree. If we want to say that one element or the other is symbolical, then we should decide where to stop IOW why only the fruit is symbolical, while the snake, the garden, Adam and Eve, God’s behavior are still considered real?

Was the snake simply a thought generated by their naturally awakening minds? Was the fruit simply the knowledge about the surrounding world that every curious child needs in order to grow up, but whose possession always makes him lose his innocence, his personal Garden of Eden?

This is a simple and logical interpretation. But what about the enigmatic behavior of God, who issues a death threat against Adam and Eve, knowing that they were enough immature to ignore it, and then cruelly punishes them and all their descendants for disobedience? How could they have understood a death threat or the notion of punishment for disobedience, if they weren’t able to discern good from evil? IMO this element emphasizes the same moral of the story - that all humans, as conscious beings, are trapped in this elementary paradox: they can’t grow up without acquiring the desired knowledge of good and evil, but when they begin to acquire it, the natural consequence is suffering and pain caused by the growing awareness of everything that contradicts their original childish innocence (people can do evil, people get sick and die, nature is cruel and blind).

 

[fhansen]

The biblical story tells us it was a fruit, so I discussed the story in its own terms: with an actual Adam and an actual Eve, an actual snake and an actual tree. If we want to say that one element or the other is symbolical, then we should decide where to stop IOW why only the fruit is symbolical, while the snake, the garden, Adam and Eve, God’s behavior are still considered real?

Was the snake simply a thought generated by their naturally awakening minds? Was the fruit simply the knowledge about the surrounding world that every curious child needs in order to grow up, but whose possession always makes him lose his innocence, his personal Garden of Eden?

This is a simple and logical interpretation. But what about the enigmatic behavior of God, who issues a death threat against Adam and Eve, knowing that they were enough immature to ignore it, and then cruelly punishes them and all their descendants for disobedience? How could they have understood a death threat or the notion of punishment for disobedience, if they weren’t able to discern good from evil? IMO this element emphasizes the same moral of the story - that all humans, as conscious beings, are trapped in this elementary paradox: they can’t grow up without acquiring the desired knowledge of good and evil, but when they begin to acquire it, the natural consequence is suffering and pain caused by the growing awareness of everything that contradicts their original childish innocence (people can do evil, people get sick and die, nature is cruel and blind).

The Church teaches that parts of the story, including the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, were symbolic while, for example, the act of two actual parents of all present-day humankind committing the first sin was literal. In my understanding the act of disobedience of God is the crucial aspect of the drama. Man became conscious of good and evil-their eyes were opened- and ashamed of the evil they had committed, as soon as they did so. From then on the knowledge of good and evil would be possessed by all mankind: the immediate knowledge of the good inherent in God’s creation along with the knowledge of the evil of sin-that which opposes God’s goodness, that which opposes His will and the effects of that opposition that we all experience everyday.

 

[ellzeena]

The biblical story tells us it was a fruit, so I discussed the story in its own terms: with an actual Adam and an actual Eve, an actual snake and an actual tree. If we want to say that one element or the other is symbolical, then we should decide where to stop IOW why only the fruit is symbolical, while the snake, the garden, Adam and Eve, God’s behavior are still considered real?

Was the snake simply a thought generated by their naturally awakening minds? Was the fruit simply the knowledge about the surrounding world that every curious child needs in order to grow up, but whose possession always makes him lose his innocence, his personal Garden of Eden?

This is a simple and logical interpretation. But what about the enigmatic behavior of God, who issues a death threat against Adam and Eve, knowing that they were enough immature to ignore it, and then cruelly punishes them and all their descendants for disobedience? How could they have understood a death threat or the notion of punishment for disobedience, if they weren’t able to discern good from evil? IMO this element emphasizes the same moral of the story - that all humans, as conscious beings, are trapped in this elementary paradox: they can’t grow up without acquiring the desired knowledge of good and evil, but when they begin to acquire it, the natural consequence is suffering and pain caused by the growing awareness of everything that contradicts their original childish innocence (people can do evil, people get sick and die, nature is cruel and blind).

Yes of course I understood your discussing it in that matter, rather like reading a fairy tale or watching a morality play, all the while understanding there is an important underlying statement of truth being made. And my confusion is just as you state: why would God create/bring to fruition two Hominids (becoming Homo Sapiens, and it must have been such if they lived far apart and never even met one another, as science suggests) when He knew, all along, what would happen and that they would fall from grace and then be subject to death and eternal punishment? As for “all their descendants”, the concept of “original sin” came from the philosophy of St. Augustine. But of course Jesus did enter the world and, ultimately, why? Well of course He knew he was literally “putting to death” Death, itself (in the sense of spiritual damnation but notice: not in the physical sense, other than for Himself and, perhaps, His Mother). But most important, He came to “set the record straight” about God because the Jews had pretty much gotten it all wrong, they were caught up in extreme legalism, they had forgotten the essential relationship. Jesus came to remind us of just how simple that relationship can be, for those “who have ears”. So: it must have been SOMETHING about that essential relationship that caused the break with God in Homo Sapiens. Perhaps (well, not perhaps, it’s obvious from historical and archeological records) they turned to other “gods” (worshiped idols, the sun, the moon, thunder, etc.) But wasn’t that more a function of their limited ability to comprehend reality? So then: that can’t be “IT” at all. It is EXACTLY their ability to comprehend reality that they “lost”, putting their own interpretations before the intuitive knowledge of what the true Creator intended for them. How, what, when…and what keeps apologists from going to this “place” in time, this “act”, with reason and great spiritual knowledge, to attempt an explanation? Or, have they done so and I just missed it because all the explanations I’ve ever heard just don’t make any sense. And frankly, to insist upon the belief of an actual “couple”, together and created for that purpose, who ate an apple because of a snake…well, that renders the entire history that follows rather ridiculous.

I know, this sort of thinking is probably forbidden, seems an awful lot of things are forbidden, one wonders why. Hasn’t God allowed these thoughts to form in our minds and perhaps He wants us to come closer to the truth? Free will: yes He gave them that, and it lets Him “off the hook” in terms of cruelty (I think, although certainly others would argue differently) but maybe THIS is “IT”. Maybe our judgment of Him, based upon our limited understanding, BECAUSE bad things happen (and they always have), IS the “apple”. What do you think?

 

[Layp3rs0n]

It certainly was not an apple, that’s a metaphor, but for what? And as science has uncovered, among all Human-like creatures there appeared, at the same time in different locations (according to science), two who were “different”: one male, one female, which came first? Well, one argues the female must have done since the male carried the same mitochondria, identical. So what does this mean? I have no idea. There was no food involved, of that I’m sure; God’s command not to “eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” might also be a metaphor as is the snake. Yes perhaps animals could speak (telepathically), they can now (believe me, I know, and it’s weird when it happens); but how could a snake convince the only true “Human” to eat an apple? She must have been quite stupid. And now we come to the crux of the matter; her naivete, this must have had something to do with doubt. All of a sudden, “Adam” and “Eve” arrived at a “place” in time, a moment, where they doubted God.

While we can never know with certainty what was the Original Sin, many theologians DO believe it had do with a dietary prohibition. Why? Because it is fitting that God should provide antidote that involved eating. Which, of course, He has.

 

[grannymh]

But what about the enigmatic behavior of God, who issues a death threat against Adam and Eve, knowing that they were enough immature to ignore it, and then cruelly punishes them and all their descendants for disobedience?

What enigmatic behavior?

Do we not know that God is the Creator and Adam is the creature in whom is the whole human race “as one body of one man”?

Have we missed the difference in status between an infinite Pure Spirit and a finite resident in a material/physical world?

Why have we forgotten that Adam had intellect and will before he shattered the relationship between humanity and divinity?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I could of course be wrong, but my personal take on the Garden of Eden, Tree of Knowledge, and the eating of the Forbidden Fruit {which wasn’t an apple BTW] - is that it was most likely meant to be taken as a parable.

Before most folks could read, truths were often wrapped up in a parable story, much as also happened in fables. As such the knowledge/wisdom could better survive being passed down verbally from generation to generation without suffering too much from the ravages of ‘Chinese Whispers’.

Jesus Himself often told moral truths and lessons within the form of parables.

 

[grannymh]

I could of course be wrong, but my personal take on the Garden of Eden, Tree of Knowledge, and the eating of the Forbidden Fruit {which wasn’t an apple BTW] - is that it was most likely meant to be taken as a parable.

Please,
What exactly is this parable of which you speak?