"Adam and Eve-who do you think is more responsible for the eviction from paradise""

[pori123]

Hello :lol: i'm facing a big trouble to analyse this topic.my madam gave an assignment on this topic,please help me to make one. I know Eve is responsible for the eviction but i can't make it broad anyhow:crash: .help me out my friends...........i'm waiting.dead line is April28,2009.

[subterranean]

You should have used a bawling emoticon. Who knows, it might raise a little pitty.

[PoeticPassions]

Blame the woman, of course. It is obvious that Satan, or er, the serpent (not one in the same in the Bible, but the same in Milton's epic poem) is responsible. Or perhaps it is free will that is responsible. Which makes it all a bit ludicrous. There is a choice... God gives free will but then he condems one for utilizing it.

There is no blame. It had to happen. God created Paradise knowing it would happen, because if you truly believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent, then he must have known that Eve would eat the apple. Which, perhaps, then puts the blame back on God.

round and round we go... silly, these threads... A new user asking for help, and then never to be seen again.

and I am in an odd mood. My apologies for the rambling.

[grotto]

Oh sure! Blame the woman! Maybe you can blame the Madam for giving you a homework project too!

I’m afraid you’re going to have to, “how should I say”, wing it, study, use your imagination “if you have one” and figure it out for yourself. I don’t think you will get much help here. I suppose there is no harm in trying though, huh? Good luck.

[JBI]

God is to be blamed. He created Adam and Eve, and sent the serpent, knowing they would fall. After all, he created them knowing the only possible outcomes for their actions. He knew they would fall, as he knew everything.

The problem with the story though, is textually, I find that it takes a primary myth, and weaves it within a stranger narrative. The actual chapter in Genesis, to my reading, doesn't really seem to fit in properly.

If I were to categorize it, and I'm no folklorist, I would say it fits closer to beast fables and folktales than to the poetic opening of Genesis, and would be taken as such, had it not been in the narrative. The actual fall though, has no bearing on the rest of the book per say, it merely justifies an unexplained thing within the context of a tradition - Why do people die, why is life hard, why do women suffer so much giving birth (especially at a time when giving birth not only meant a high infant mortality rate, but also a good chance of the mother dying as well). The only way to do something like that, is either to blame God, not possible under the circumstance, or internalize it, blame humanity.

Of course, the Fall is given significantly more weight in a Christian reading, because it gets woven to include Satan, who doesn't appear in the Judaic reading. I think it is safe to say, from a literary perspective, it is hard to assume the serpent is anything close to Satan, and merely is an interwoven myth, explaining the nature of snakes.

In other words, we have a folk myth that got blended textually with another one, and then got mixed into a grander mythological cycle over time.

[Stargazer86]

[QUOTE=PoeticPassions;709925]
There is no blame. It had to happen. God created Paradise knowing it would happen, because if you truly believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent, then he must have known that Eve would eat the apple. Which, perhaps, then puts the blame back on God.
QUOTE]

Really couldn't say it any better than this.

As far as Adam and Eve go, I always felt that they equally shared the blame. They both committed the crime so it doesn't really matter who did it first or who's to blame. For example: my step son had a friend stay the night last week. I told them they could stay up late and watch a movie but they were not to get up from thier sleeping bags. I nodded off for about 10 minutes and discovered them running around the house. My step son said it was the other boy's idea to get up since I was asleep. I do believe him, but they still got in trouble equally as did Adam and Eve...all according to God's (and Lucifer's) plan. Lol though I suppose Adam & Eve and a 6 year olds sleepover aren't exactly comperable :P

[planet earth]

It is human nature. Blame Human nature, the nature within us that prevents us from submitting totally to His orders.

This was the firts application to "Choice" that we were given. "True will" was missing here and that was why temptation, played its role.
Quranically, Adam was to blame more, this true will was missing from Him

And verily We made a covenant of old with Adam, but he forgot, and We found no constancy in him. 20:115

Any How, Human beings were created to live on earth and to inherit it, but, with that lesson in mind, a human being recalls the incident and tries to transcend the self, from following its temptation to submitting to its creator.

[JBI]

The point is, God created Adam and later Eve, according to the text, therefore if it is human nature, it is only human nature because God created humans with that natural ability, in other words, God willed or set humanity up for failure.

[Tyler Self]

Both are equally to blame. To place more blame on any one of them is to cast a stone. We're all sinners too, so we are no more blameless than either of them.

[JBI]

Both are equally to blame. To place more blame on any one of them is to cast a stone. We're all sinners too, so we are no more blameless than either of them.

You're a sinner. Judaism doesn't prescribe to this inherent sense of guilt that Catholics, and some Christians insist is within us. I doubt many other religions do to. In fact, I would go as far as to say I do not believe in sin (using a definition of sin as it pertains to the religious, not as a "shame", as in "It's a sin to waste that.").

[Tyler Self]

You're a sinner. Judaism doesn't prescribe to this inherent sense of guilt that Catholics, and some Christians insist is within us. I doubt many other religions do to. In fact, I would go as far as to say I do not believe in sin (using a definition of sin as it pertains to the religious, not as a "shame", as in "It's a sin to waste that.").

You're wrong. This is why they sacrificed animals, to appease God. If no one sins in Judaism then the prophets (especially Elijah) were pointless. Christians just believe this sacrifice is not needed anymore because an infinite sacrifice was made.

What does that have to do with this? Sin is willfull disobedience to God, which both Adam and Eve did. This is the answer to the question.

[JBI]

You're wrong. This is why they sacrificed animals, to appease God. If no one sins in Judaism then the prophets (especially Elijah) were pointless. Christians just believe this sacrifice is not needed anymore because an infinite sacrifice was made.

What does that have to do with this? Sin is willfull disobedience to God, which both Adam and Eve did. This is the answer to the question.

Not from guilt, in the same way. You misinterpret the sacrifice of animals, which you would know, has not happened in a while, and had nothing to do with guilt or sin. Sin isn't the reason for praying. It just goes to show how ingrained this misunderstanding is. The reason for prayer is for clarity and guidance through God, and also as a means of maintaining the tradition. The formal reason, stems from the destruction of the temple, and acts to remember the covenant after the time of the destruction, and the diaspora, in accordance with the expectation of the arrival of the Maschiach (transliteration mine).


The tradition and the remembrance is more central to the prayer, whereas in Christian dogma, the focus of praying is different. I suggest you read a little more into the relationship, or the understanding of God between the two religions, as you will notice the religions are far more different than you can imagine, and the term Judeo-Christian is quite oxymoronic.

I didn't say no one sinned, I just said that sin doesn't come from an inherent sense of guilt over the fact that people are born. People sin, yes, but quite simply, that isn't why people pray, and sinning is always in relation to covenants, whereas in Christianity (I generalize, but I speak more toward Catholicism) it is in relation to a divine order.

I recommend you read some commentary, especially canonical commentary, on the whole Garden of Eden bit from Genesis. Rashi says this completely different than Aquinas, I can assure you. In fact, you would realize that they are almost talking about completely different texts.

[planet earth]

Sin.....Prayer...Human Nature

These are the main issues here.

Well we all agree on the story itself. Adam was created before Eve. She was created from himself. However, there are some points I view differently.

We are to inherit earth, but to live an eternal life in heaven. Therefore, The Creator chose this scenario for Adam and Eve. Without sin, mankind would have forgotten where eternal Home is. Sin acts like an alarm, a reminder, that we have another place to go.

We do not pray because we are sinners, but we repent because we are sinners. Actually with sin, there is no purgation, purification, filtration.

Prayer, on the other hand acts as the bond between mankind and His Creator, to the Eternal gardens of Eden.

The bottom line is we are here for there. We sin to remember this and pray to live the happiness of there until we reach.

[JBI]

But observe what you just did - you just threw all the focus to sin. Why sin? What is sin? Why not focus on the fundamental - knowledge. That is, what I would argue, is the centre of the so called "Fall". It is not brought about by a sin, in my reading, but rather the acquisition of knowledge. Sin is secondary, the act of knowing is the fundamental aspect, brought about by the snake convincing Eve to eat the fruit, interpret that however you want. In general though, I like to think it implies a sense of coming of age of the two people, and awakening into the realization of the physical aspects of existence.

[planet earth]

I agree.

Knowledge is the bridge from innocence to experience. The Romantics used not the word sin, but experience.

The fall, therefore, came from not being satisfied with knowledge, but the curiousity of indulging into experience.

A broader meaning and thinking as well, is what you pointed to. Experience, that arouses from knowledge would either lead to negative experience, which leads eventually to a fall or failure, or, positive experience, which eventually leads to transcendence.

I believe that is why mankind came to earth through a fall, to know the flavour of transcendence when it happens.

Does this make sense?

[Ophelia20]

As a Muslim, I would say that both Adam and Eve sinned and ate from the tree. Who is to be blamed?.. well of course Satan (or Iblis) who deluded them to eat it, and live in paradise. I wouldn't agree much of what some have said (it's a matter of religion). If we believe that it's Eve's fault, then we are saying that she's to be blamed. Many people believe that because of Eve's sin, all women are to be blamed, they are wicked.

Islamically speaking, both Adam and Eve are responsible, they were susceptible to Satan's temptation.

[Tyler Self]

Not from guilt, in the same way. You misinterpret the sacrifice of animals, which you would know, has not happened in a while, and had nothing to do with guilt or sin. Sin isn't the reason for praying. It just goes to show how ingrained this misunderstanding is. The reason for prayer is for clarity and guidance through God, and also as a means of maintaining the tradition. The formal reason, stems from the destruction of the temple, and acts to remember the covenant after the time of the destruction, and the diaspora, in accordance with the expectation of the arrival of the Maschiach (transliteration mine).

The tradition and the remembrance is more central to the prayer, whereas in Christian dogma, the focus of praying is different. I suggest you read a little more into the relationship, or the understanding of God between the two religions, as you will notice the religions are far more different than you can imagine, and the term Judeo-Christian is quite oxymoronic.

Good sir, you are all over the place. No where did I talk about prayer? Where did that come in?

Also, I want you to prove your statements. I can prove mine. Read Leviticus 4:35 and Leviticus 5:10. That is just the tip of the iceberg for old testament and bible reasons for animal sacrifice.


I didn't say no one sinned, I just said that sin doesn't come from an inherent sense of guilt over the fact that people are born. People sin, yes, but quite simply, that isn't why people pray, and sinning is always in relation to covenants, whereas in Christianity (I generalize, but I speak more toward Catholicism) it is in relation to a divine order.

I recommend you read some commentary, especially canonical commentary, on the whole Garden of Eden bit from Genesis. Rashi says this completely different than Aquinas, I can assure you. In fact, you would realize that they are almost talking about completely different texts.

I by no means mean to sound harsh here but truly, what are you talking about? The biblical definition of sin is willfull disobedience of God. This may or may not breed guilt. By the bolded part it almost sounds like you're saying it isn't sin --> guilt......but rather guilt ---> sin.

[JBI]

It does not say sin in my version, it merely translates as something like "It shall be forgiven him", meaning he will be forgiven, not his sin will be undone. The word Sin is not in my version, and a word that translates to sin is not either.

The word sin is, from my understanding, coming more from a Greek line than a Jewish one. Would you say sin is synonymous with misdeed? Would one say going against the way of the Tao is a sin in Taoist thought? I think the very interpretation of the act is fundamentally different between cultures, and the actual makeup of not only the text, but also the languages themselves reflects this. The Hebrew text in the case of Leviticus 5:10 puts more emphasis on the pragmatic elements, the atonement, and the process, whereas my English translations available, seem to put a heavier weight on the actual act itself. In truth, to use the King James Version,

5:10 And he shall offer the second [for] a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

Notice the vocabulary in the last bit. There is a comma in there, adding an extra weight to the word sin, and also 3 superfluous words; "It shall be". The real ending is two words, translating something like "forgiveness [given] him". The is an extra weight then placed within the words, which emphasizes the part thought to be most important.


Adam and Eve, to stay on topic, in the Christian reading (again, I focus on Catholicism, acknowledging the mixed opinions), seem more in line with a Hubris interpretation, that looks at the situation as mankind having a place and a job, and a limitation, and going against that and thereby committing a "sin". In a Jewish reading, seem more in line with a narrative that focuses on the father-children relationship, and looks at the situation as Adam and Eve going against the orders of the parent, and then having the knowledge of what they did. The actual act is not per say a sin, merely an event, which explains the process of coming into dependence, and leaving the shelter of the creators grace. In it, is tied the realization of the hardness of life. The father figure fails to provide anymore, birth becomes more difficult, work becomes a necessity, and one knows what good and bad are, as one feels within them the hardness of disobedience, and what it means to break the divine covenant.

It isn't a sin that will not let one enter heaven, but merely an event with a bad outcome.

Do you see the difference? There is no sense of sin, merely a sense act and consequence. There is what God wants, what mankind does instead, and the price that must be exacted as a consequence. The event was planned, and happened. God knew it would happen, God wanted it to happen, and God doesn't even do what he supposedly does in the Christian reading.

If you examine the language God uses to Eve for instance, he isn't cursing, he is merely stating a fact. He is giving them the realization of what it means to be grown up. God is not saying, now you will need to suffer in Childbirth and perhaps die, he is saying something that is biological, making them aware of it now, as they have awoken a sense of maturity within themselves. Adam's "punishment" too isn't exactly a curse, rather, it is a realization that now he will need to provide for himself, rather than be provided for. In this way, God sends off mankind on a journey, not to serve and return to Eden, but to multiply and spread over the land.


You see, there is a big difference.The concept of going against God is completely different between the two religions, and the concept of morality is completely different as well.

[Emmy Castrol]

I actually like Ellen G White's interpretation of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. She believed that the reason why Eve sinned by tasting the fruit was because she became separated from Adam. Had she been with Adam at the time when the serpent tried to tempt her, his presence may have been enough to prevent the event from happening. She ate the fruit because she was weak. Therefore Eve is responsible because, out of weakness, she tasted the fruit that God commanded she should not touch.

Adam bit into the fruit not because he believed the serpent's words of promised knowledge and wisdom. He ate the fruit out of his love for Eve. He had seen Eve already eat the fruit and he already knew that she would be punished for it. Adam loved Eve so much he could not bear to be separated from her. If she were to be casted out of paradise then so would he. Biting into the fruit was the hardest decision he ever made because he knew the repercussions of it. However, he lies at fault because he did not have enough faith in God to figure out a solution to the problem.

And yet, even after he has eaten the fruit, God still provided humankind with a plan of salvation. So who knows, if Adam had not eaten the fruit perhaps he could have been sufficient to save Eve, instead of humankind requiring salvation that then meant only Jesus could provide.

[Tyler Self]

It does not say sin in my version, it merely translates as something like "It shall be forgiven him", meaning he will be forgiven, not his sin will be undone. The word Sin is not in my version, and a word that translates to sin is not either.

I can't believe it. Either you don't know or you're lying. The Hebrew word in question here is chatta'ah, which when used in other parts of the Bible also translated to sin. And, lo and behold, this is used to describe animal sacrifice as sin offering. Other passages that use it are: Exd 29:14, Lev 5:9, Num 15:25. It keeps going. What kind of Bible do you have???


The word sin is, from my understanding, coming more from a Greek line than a Jewish one. Would you say sin is synonymous with misdeed? Would one say going against the way of the Tao is a sin in Taoist thought? I think the very interpretation of the act is fundamentally different between cultures, and the actual makeup of not only the text, but also the languages themselves reflects this. The Hebrew text in the case of Leviticus 5:10 puts more emphasis on the pragmatic elements, the atonement, and the process, whereas my English translations available, seem to put a heavier weight on the actual act itself. In truth, to use the King James Version,

5:10 And he shall offer the second [for] a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

Notice the vocabulary in the last bit. There is a comma in there, adding an extra weight to the word sin, and also 3 superfluous words; "It shall be". The real ending is two words, translating something like "forgiveness [given] him". The is an extra weight then placed within the words, which emphasizes the part thought to be most important.

To be honest, analyzing the bible through literary methods like syntax is futile. The authors weren't writing it in that manner.



Adam and Eve, to stay on topic, in the Christian reading (again, I focus on Catholicism, acknowledging the mixed opinions), seem more in line with a Hubris interpretation, that looks at the situation as mankind having a place and a job, and a limitation, and going against that and thereby committing a "sin". In a Jewish reading, seem more in line with a narrative that focuses on the father-children relationship, and looks at the situation as Adam and Eve going against the orders of the parent, and then having the knowledge of what they did. The actual act is not per say a sin, merely an event, which explains the process of coming into dependence, and leaving the shelter of the creators grace. In it, is tied the realization of the hardness of life. The father figure fails to provide anymore, birth becomes more difficult, work becomes a necessity, and one knows what good and bad are, as one feels within them the hardness of disobedience, and what it means to break the divine covenant.

You shouldn't focus on catholicism. Why are you doing that? Focus on the Bible.


It isn't a sin that will not let one enter heaven, but merely an event with a bad outcome.

There are people much more educated in Bible studies than you who disagree with this. Have you read the Bible and digested it? John 3:16-17 and Matthew 19:16-17.

[JBI]

Weren't writing in that manner? I use only the original, and then check the translations in the King James Version to understand the discrepancies. I also am checking the Rashi commentary, amongst others for every passage, and he pays particular interest toward the grammar and syntax, as did most Rabbinical readers going back thousands of years.

for Bemidbar Shelah 25 for instance, chatta'um would better translate as something like transgressions. Especially since you fail to read the last word, bish'ga'gah, which would imply a sort of acting from ignorance, which when considered would make the concept of "sin" rather silly, given that the chapter is talking about the process of arriving in Canaan, and the journey toward purification in the sense of upholding the covenant and not being polluted by the acts of the past, whether influenced by old traditions, or simply aspects of the journey. As sin is, by the Christian understanding, so I am told (again, using Catholicism as my foundation and acknowledging the large divide between sects) a moral one, derived. Again, you question my reading, at one point can we assume that these are the same things. Like I said, it reads closer to me as transgressions, and things that may have transpired while abroad, and this process is a mere cleansing - a popular motif within the text, I am sure you know about - and the way to achieve a state of purity so as to be better suited to serve God. It has nothing to do with a moral sense and fire and brimstone, or the Catholic concept of sin being a state of mind, a stance later incorporated into many other sects, and which shows up all over the place, such as Milton, who seems the foundation for many people's perspectives on the whole narrative.

As for your mentions of the New Testament - that is irrelevant unless you prescribe to the New books as superseding the old ones, which I don't - they are two different literatures, and I think going to the New book for commentary on the Old is like going to Shelley's Frankenstein for commentary on Paradise Lost, or Blake's Milton for commentary on Paradise Lost, or even going to Paradise Lost for commentary on the Bible. The Gap of thousands of years (less than that for the text, but the traditions must have been thousands of years old), the difference in perspectives between the authors, and the difference in language and composition make using one to explain the other rather a leap of faith, and you can hardly understand the meaning of the text by looking for it in another text. I'm sure Muslims, for instance, read the story very, very differently, and also access their relationship to God very differently to Christians.


You really need to take into account multiple perspectives more, as you're making an uneducated evaluation by superimposing the New Testament as a factual continuation of the Old, and an authority able to give definite interpretation.


There also is know reason to name drop - my copy of Bere**** is over 800 pages, and the first 5 chapters are amongst the most commentated on. It suffices to say,that I could easily give you Shavtai Hachacham, or Rashis, or Eben Azrahs, or Ramban's or whomever's interpretation, which, by the way, I have been consulting. Biblical studies may shed light on the Bible, it is true, but that doesn't mean 2000 odd years of Judaic commentary sheds no light, or that the scholars I could possibly quite are less well read in the tradition of commentary, as they hardly can be. Believe me, I have read plenty of interpretations of the text - there are about 15 or so within my book (all in that slow, horrible Rashi script which is agonizing to read, yet I manage). Don't accuse me of ignoring scholarship, or ignoring the opinion of less learned people than me.

[planet earth]

Wow

How useful this has become.

As a user of an original text I would like to share with you what I found out regarding terminolgy regarding "sin" in the Quran. I will try to be as accurate as possible in conveying meaning.

There is no one word, describing sin. If all the words are translated sin, then there is a problem.

There is "zal"
"thanb"
"khatia"
"maasia"
"Ithm"
"wizr"
All these words convey, one way or another actions one should not do, or has to do because of the falliable nature of the human being.

I can give a very rough translation of each term now, until, getting the roots in Arabic and knowing in detail, what are the differences.

According to my understanding "zal" is error or mistake, "Thanb" is sin, "Khatia" wrong doing, "maasia" disobedience, "Ithm" is a huge disobedience and sin, "wizr" is the very heavy sense of guilt after committing an act one should not have.

Until, I get into the roots hopefully, Allah Willing, I just want to return to Adam and Eve. Here is an account of what happened and who is to blame. I think Ophelia's reply was the most accurate.

And We said, O Adam, Settle, you and your partner, in Paradise, and both of you eat from it abundantly however you will and do not approach you both this tree or you both will be among the unfair.

So mislead them both did Satan from it and took them out from what they were in both, and We said decline from it some of you enemies to others and to you in earth a settlement and provision to a time. (Quran 2:35,36)

The word both, was mentioned everytime, in the two verses. Therefore both were to blame. The term used here was mislead, into mistake it was (zal). However Allah accepted repentance on the spot for He is the the Merciful Repentor.

[Tyler Self]

Rashi drew on Talmudic, Midrashic, and Aggadic sources to make his commentary. I am drawing on the New Testament.

You're acting as if the New Testament isn't a factual continuation of the Old Testament. Preconceptions.

Oh and, before I forget, and not that it means anything, people (including Jesus) were speaking as if what they were doing was a continuation of the old prophets' work.

[JBI]

Rashi drew on Talmudic, Midrashic, and Aggadic sources to make his commentary. I am drawing on the New Testament.

You're acting as if the New Testament isn't a factual continuation of the Old Testament. Preconceptions.


Have you read Midrash, or Aggada? He always sites when he uses them, and in this case, he didn't use them, as he didn't site them, and merely focused on the grammar at hand. Rashi's understanding of the language of the Old Testament is unrivaled, in my opinion, and his understanding of the scholarship before him is also unbelievable.

If you read back, you will notice that I was directly commenting on your proclamation,

"Both are equally to blame. To place more blame on any one of them is to cast a stone. We're all sinners too, so we are no more blameless than either of them."

In other words, you called me a sinner, which is in no way justified by the text. I think I have made my point clear, and I think Planet's comment on the Muslim interpretation also is worth taking into account, as it to dismantles this assumption of succession perpetuated by Christian dogma. There is nothing in the text to suggest that man kind is sinful because of Adam and Eve, or even if their act was a sin. That is what I am getting at.

As for Aggada and Midrash, those are perhaps the most natural criticisms on the text, as the tradition was still alive at that point, and therefore they probably serve as the closest thing we have to a contemporary view of what the text meant, both culturally and literally, as we are limited by language, even if one is fluent in Biblical Hebrew (as I have mentioned earlier, the book is untranslatable, and some words don't have meanings that can be generally accepted).


I'm not going to reply anymore, because, it can be seen, that there really is not point to it. I mean, talk about digression, calling me presumptive for not accepting the New Testament as a continuation of the old book, in other words, calling my scholarship into account because I do not accept a book written hundreds of years later, in Greek by the way, which I cannot read in the original, about a book that in its origin must have been thousands of years old, and you accuse me of being faulty in logic for not assuming the book, under your interpretation is a universal truth? That isn't just insulting (not just to Jewish perspectives, but also to Muslim ones as seen above), it is also demonstrative of your inability to see any plurality of perspective.

[Tyler Self]

The glass is half empty.

The closest I came to criticizing anyone's education is asking you if you read the whole Bible (in the same manner as you saying I cannot make conclusions without plurality).

[Orionsbelt]

Well clearly you have enough for a paper. The truth be told. It was the rabbit.

The creature being small and timid could not shake loose the apple from tit's anchor. How hard he tried. The snake, laughed loudly at the feeble attempts on the part of the rabbit. At that moment, Eve came walking along. The snake decide to showcase his assertiveness. Said the serpent to the rabbit, "I'll show you how it's done." We know the middle part of the story. It was written down by the humans. Now you know why you will always find rabbits near to the apple tree.

[Lynne Fees]

God created a really nice environment for Adam & Eve. Just one rule, and they listened to Satan's lie that if they "did their own thing," they would be just like God. We all do the very same thing. So don't blame God, Adam OR Eve. We should each blame ourselves.

[JBI]

God created a really nice environment for Adam & Eve. Just one rule, and they listened to Satan's lie that if they "did their own thing," they would be just like God. We all do the very same thing. So don't blame God, Adam OR Eve. We should each blame ourselves.

Blame ourselves for what exactly? What are to be blamed for? What is the crime, if it is so fundamental to who we are? Is it a crime? Is it a blessing? Is it the way things should have been acted out?

I don't see it as a crime, I see it as an event. I don't think there is any blame, as God didn't blame anyone.

[Lynne Fees]

Blame ourselves for what exactly? What are to be blamed for? What is the crime, if it is so fundamental to who we are? Is it a crime? Is it a blessing? Is it the way things should have been acted out?

I don't see it as a crime, I see it as an event. I don't think there is any blame, as God didn't blame anyone.

Okay I'll go back to the original question and say we are all responsible for our own actions. Adam and Eve were both responsible for their distancing from God, and so are we when we do things we know are not right.

[backline]

...the act of knowing is the fundamental aspect, brought about by the snake convincing Eve to eat the fruit, interpret that however you want. In general though, I like to think it implies a sense of coming of age of the two people, and awakening into the realization of the physical aspects of existence.



I think this is an excellent view.
Taking the story symbolically, it's about everyman's consciousness.

When we are children we are unashamed. When we reach a certain developmental age we become "self-conscious." Once that occurs, we are banished from the garden of childhood paradise evermore.

The story comes from an oral tradition. It's teaching something about us generally. Very often language translations lose the meaning. Symbols do not lose their meaning over time or culture.

When I read "scripture," I try not to take it literally but symbolically. In this way it speaks to all, everywhere, about an observation.

[Lynne Fees]

I think this is an excellent view.
Taking the story symbolically, it's about everyman's consciousness.

When we are children we are unashamed. When we reach a certain developmental age we become "self-conscious." Once that occurs, we are banished from the garden of childhood paradise evermore.

The story comes from an oral tradition. It's teaching something about us generally. Very often language translations lose the meaning. Symbols do not lose their meaning over time or culture.

When I read "scripture," I try not to take it literally but symbolically. In this way it speaks to all, everywhere, about an observation.

I don't "try" to take it literally or symbolically. If it sounds literal, I take it literally. If it sounds symbolic (i.e. parables of Jesus, or Revelations), I take it symbolically.

[backline]

Fair enough.