The fable of Adam and Eve is quite short, and yet riddled with flaws in terms of the overall biblical thesis.

The story begins in Genesis 2


[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
[25] And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.



Notice here that it clearly states that they were both naked and they were not ashamed of being naked. This in an important flaw to recognize in these stories. It raises a red flag that clearly indicates that these stories were written by mere mortal men who were making up fables.

To begin with, if being naked is reason to be ashamed, then there must be something "wrong" with being naked. In other words, it must be a "sin" to be naked. Otherwise what reason would there be to be ashamed?

So in this verse we are being told that Adam and Eve are actually committing sins in total innocence all the time and just not aware of it. They have no clue that they are doing anything "wrong" because they have no knowledge of "Good and Evil".

Evidently that's the idea here.

So let's move on.


Genesis 3


[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


Well, what does this story say?

It says that Eve was told not to eat of the fruit of the tree lest she will die. Period.

She doesn't say that God told her that she would be disobeying him if she ate this fruit. He merely told her that she will die. It's just information. Eve at this point is obviously quite naive and doesn't know the difference between "Good and Evil" at that stage. So she most certainly could not understand the concept of lies. She's totally naive and innocent supposedly because she has not YET obtained the knowledge of "Good and Evil".


Genesis 3


[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Ok, so a totally innocent woman who has no understanding of "Good or Evil", has just been told that the information she has been given was wrong and that nothing bad will happen if she eats this fruit.

Well duh?

At this point there is absolutely no reason for Eve to suspect that the serpent is lying to her. She has no understanding of "Good or Evil", she has no concept of people trying to get over on her or that they should give her false information. In short, she has absolutely no reason to think that this serpent is trying to get her into trouble.

She can't be savvy about things such as "Good and Evil" at this point because she hasn't yet obtained that knowledge.

Therefore she can only have acted in a state of completely naive innocence, and most certainly did not act out of any rebellious desire to reject God or do anything "wrong", on the contrary she has no concept of what's "right or wrong" at this point. She doesn't even know that she's naked and that being naked is somehow "wrong".

So she can only have acted in a state of completely naive innocence completely unaware of the consequences of her actions.


Genesis 3


[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.


Ok, they are clearly ashamed of themselves here. Well, if they are ashamed of themselves then they must already be sorry for what they have done. They aren't boldly rebelling against God screaming, "We aren't going to obey you anymore you big bully!"

They aren't doing that at all. On the contrary, they are now even ashamed of being naked, something that they weren't even aware that they had been doing "wrong" all along.


Genesis 3


[9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
[12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.


Ok, here we have Adam OPENLY CONFESSING HIS "SIN". Isn't that what this religion says we are supposed to do?

Adam certainly appears to be doing the RIGHT THING here. He's openly confessing his "sin" to God. And he's even squealing on Eve.

He's cooperating with God completely. And he's clearly ashamed of being naked. That's not an act of bold rebellion. On the contrary Adam is acting like he would love to be FORGIVEN for what had just occurred.

Isn't that what this religion says we're supposed to do? Confess our sins and ask for forgiveness?

Sure looks like this is Adam's state of mind at this point. He's not arguing with God or defying God in any way.

Genesis 3


[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.


Here Eve is explaining to God that she had been beguiled by the serpent. A concept that she could not have possibly understood BEFORE she had obtained the knowledge of "Good and Evil".

Obviously she never had a CHANCE! At the time that she had been beguiled she had no clue what that would even mean. She was beguiled by the serpent whilst in a state of pure naive innocence. And now that her eyes have been opened she is aware that she has been taken advantage of.

Moreover, is Eve acting rebellious toward God at this point? No, not at all. On the contrary she's cooperating with God FULLY. She's telling God the TRUTH, and she's even testifying against the criminal who had beguiled her. She a MODEL WITNESS for the prosecution, and she's cooperating with God FULLY. She's not rebelling against God or arguing with God at all.

She not saying to God, "You lied to me and told me that I would die if I ate this fruit! But this serpent told me the TRUTH about this fruit!"

She's not even going that far. She's CONFESSING to God that she has been beguiled by this serpent, and she's turning in the serpent and testifying against him. Fully cooperating with God.

There's no rebellion on the part of Adam and Eve in this story at all. They are totally cooperating with God and telling him the TRUTH as they know it to be.


[14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


Ok, so supposedly the serpent truly is the guilty party here. He supposedly knew that what he was doing was against the will of God and so on and so forth.

So fine, God curses him to crawl on his belly for the rest of the days of his life, and evidently that's why snakes have no legs.

Believe that one and I have a bridge up for sale that I'd like to tell you about.

~~~~

Ok, moving onward:


[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
[16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


WHOA!

Here we have God delving all out this horrible sentencing to Adam and Eve already.

But WAIT?

Did God even ask Adam and Eve if they are sorry for what had just unfolded?

Did God even ask Adam and Eve if they are feeling remorseful and would like to repent or be forgiven?

This whole religion is based on the idea that everyone needs to confess their sins and ask to be forgiven for their mistakes.

Yet we don't see Adam and Eve being offered any opportunity to be forgiven or to repent for their naive innocent mistakes.

And according to this story Adam and Eve are not rebelling against God in the slightest. They are totally confessing to God what had just unfolded, they willfully testified against the criminal who beguiled them, and they are offering to tell God the TRUTH about everything.

By the sounds of this story, if God would have asked them if they would like to be forgiven at this point, it sure sounds like they would be more than willing to ask for forgiveness.

This is ridiculous!

The harsh sentencing of these two naive innocent people who had been beguiled by and evil serpent and EVEN CONFESSED before God to the whole ordeal, and even testified against the evil serpent, and told God the TRUTH of everything that had happened, is totally uncalled for. Their harsh sentencing is simply unrighteous and doesn't fit this scenario at all because they are being completely cooperative with God and confessing everything to God just as it has unfolded.

At worst, they should have been given a slap on the wrist and asked not to ever do anything like that again. Not only were they "first offenders", but according to this story they didn't even have any concept of "Good or Evil" before they had made the mistake. They couldn't have possibly committed this action with premeditated malice.

Their so-called "fall from grace" would have necessarily had to have been an act of complete naive innocence.


[20] And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


And here they are being kicked out of the garden of Eden, not even being asked if they would like to repent from their "Wicked Ways".



They had already CONFESSED their "sins". They had already told God the TRUTH about everything. They had already shown complete and full COOPERATION with God.

And they weren't even given the opportunity to be forgiven?

~~~~~

Yet, we are to believe that now all it takes to get "back in good" with this God is to simply confess our sins and ask to be forgiven.

~~~~~

Well, based on this story of Adam and Eve, it certainly appears that they had totally confessed their sins, and were totally ashamed and sorry for what had just happened. They even testified against the evil demon that beguiled them. The fully cooperated with this God and did not show the least bit of rebellion or desire to oppose God in any way.

So this story doesn't even hold water. The "punishment" doesn't fit the crime, and it most certainly doesn't fit the attitude of Adam and Eve as this story is written. They weren't rebelling against God at all. They were TOTALLY COOPERATING with God in this story! And evidently they were even ashamed of themselves. People who are not willing to repent feel no shame! Since Adam and Eve were ashamed of themselves that already shows that they were remorseful and sorry for what had happened.

They should have been forgiven. They did everything that is required to be forgiven. The confessed their mistakes, they told the absolute truth about what had happened, they turned in all the guilty parties. They did everything RIGHT. They cooperated with God's AUTHORITY completely without hesitation or rebellion.


Adam and Eve should have been given gold stars to paste on their foreheads for having been such cooperative angels.
'

They turned in the evil snake that had beguiled them and freely testified against him.

What more could they possible do?

They were clearly not being rebellious toward God at all, as these fables are written. They were confessing everything and cooperating with God FULLY. That does NOT constitute rebellion.

These stories have to be man made fables.

Snakes crawl on their bellies now because God put a curse on serpents?

Come on folks. This is like the Three Little Pigs, or some other nursery rhyme.

Conclusion:

These were fables that people made up to tell their children. Over time they realized that even some adults are gullible enough to believe them too, and thus they grew to become "religion".

There is a talk show discussing this right now:


http://www.amazingfacts.org/radio/bible-answers-live-question-archive/ctl/playmedia/mid/731/mdid/2519.aspx

I don't have high-speed Internet so I can't check it out. But I'm sure that my objections are valid.

Innocent people falling from grace when they don't even know the difference between right and wrong to begin with?

They totally confess what they had done after the fact, and offer up the complete truth, turning in all guilty partners?

The serpent is cursed to crawl on his belly for the rest of his days (supposedly why snakes have no legs)?

Sure, the serpent might have deserved it, but still, how silly is this story truly?

And then Adam and Eve are cursed and kicked out of the Garden of Eden without even rebellion against. They are cooperating fully and weren't even asked if they want to be forgiven for their INNOCENT fall from grace?

Come on.

Gimmie a break.

These stories are just as silly as Greek Mythology. Sometimes even sillier.

If snakes lost their legs because of that, I wonder what the platypus did wrong?

Hmmmmm....Let's see....


The platypus didn't do anything wrong.

So...Maybe God made the platypus because He likes variety...

and also , God has a great sense of Humor ?

...............ISN'T THERE SOME OTHER WAY?...............

By Josh McDowell, (from his book "More Than A Carpenter")


Recently at the University of Texas a graduate student approached me and asked, "Why is Jesus the only way to a relationship with God?" I had shown that Jesus claimed to be the only way to God, that the testimony of the Scriptures and the apostles was reliable, and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. Yet he had the question, "Why Jesus? Isn't there some other way to a relationship with God? What about Buddha? Mohammed? Can't an individual simply live a good life? If God is such a loving God, then wouldn't he accept all people just the way they are?"

A businessman said to me, "Evidently you have proven that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Aren't there other ways also to a relationship with God apart from Jesus?"

The above comments are indicative of many people's questions today about why one has to trust Jesus as Savior and Lord in order to have a relationship with God and experience the forgiveness of sin. I answered the student by saying that many people don't understand the nature of God. Usually the question is "How can a loving God allow a sinful individual to go to hell?" I would ask, "How can a holy, just, righteous God allow a sinful individual into his presence?" A misunderstanding of the basic nature and character of God has been the cause of so many theological and ethical problems. Most people understand God to be a loving God and they don't go any further. The problem is that God is not only a God of love. He is also a righteous, just and holy God.

We basically know God through his attributes. An attribute is not a part of God. I used to think that if I took all the attributes of God - holiness, love, justice, righteousness - and added them up, the sum total would equal God. Well, that's not true. An attribute isn't something that is a part of God but something that is true of God. For example, when we say God is love, we don't mean that a part of God is love, but that love is something that is true of God. When God loves he is simply being himself.

Here is a problem that developed as a result of humanity entering into sin. God in eternity past decided to create man and woman. Basically I believe that the Bible indicates he created man and woman in order to share his love and glory with them. But when Adam and Eve rebelled and went their own individual ways, sin entered the human race. At that point individuals became sinful or separated from God. This is the "predicament" that God found himself in. He created men and women to share his glory with them, yet they spurned his counsel and command and chose to sin. And so he approached them with his love to save them. But because he is not only a loving God, but a holy, just, righteous God, his very nature would destroy any sinful individual. The Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death." So, you might say, God had a problem.

Within the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - a decision was made. Jesus, God the Son, would take upon himself human flesh. He would become the God-man. This is described in John 1 where it says that the Word became flesh and tabernacled or dwelt among us. And also in Philippians 2 where it says that Christ Jesus emptied himself and took on the form of a man.

Jesus was the God-man. He was just as much man as if he had never been God and just as much God as if he had never been man. By his own choice he lived a sinless life, wholly obeying the Father. The biblical declaration that "the wages of sin is death" did not apply to him. Because he was not only finite man but infinite God, he had the infinite capacity to take upon himself the sins of the world. When he went to the cross almost 2000 years ago, a holy, just, righteous God poured out his wrath upon his Son. And when Jesus said, "It is finished," the just, righteous nature of God was satisfied. You could say that at that point God was "set free" to deal with humanity in love without having to destroy a sinful individual, because through Jesus' death on the cross, God's righteous nature was satisfied.

Often I ask people the question, "For whom did Jesus die?" and usually the reply, "For me" or "For the world." And I'll say, "Yes, that's right, but for whom else did Jesus die?" and usually they'll say, "Why, I don't know." I reply, "For God the Father." You see, Christ not only died for us but he also died for the Father. This is described in Romans 3 where it talks about propitiation. Propitiation basically means satisfaction of a requirement. And when Jesus died on the cross, he not only died for us but he died to meet the holy and just requirements of the basic nature of God.

An incident that took place several years ago in California illuminates what Jesus did on the cross in order to solve the problem God had in dealing with the sin of humanity. A young woman was picked up for speeding. She was ticketed and taken before the judge. The judge read off the citation and said, "Guilty or not guilty?" The woman replied, "Guilty." The judge brought down the gavel and fined her $100 or ten days. Then an amazing thing took place. The judge stood up, took off his robe, walked down around in front, took out his billfold, and paid the fine. What's the explanation of this? The judge was her father. He loved his daughter, yet he was a just judge. His daughter had broken the law and he couldn't simply say to her, "Because I love you so much, I forgive you. You may leave." If he had done that, he wouldn't have been a righteous judge. He wouldn't have upheld the law. But he loved his daughter so much that he was willing to take off his judicial robe and come down in front and represent her as her father and pay the fine.

This illustration pictures to some extent what God did for us through Jesus Christ. We sinned. The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death." No matter how much he loved us, God had to bring down the gavel and say death, because he is a righteous and just God. And yet, being a loving God, he loved us so much that he was willing to come down off the throne in the form of the man Christ Jesus and pay the price for us, which was Christ's death on the cross.

At this point many people ask the question, "Why couldn't God just forgive?" An executive of a large corporation said, "My employees often do something, break something, and I just forgive them." Then he added, "Are you trying to tell me I can do something that God can't do?" People fail to realize that wherever there is forgiveness there's a payment. For example, let's say my daughter breaks a lamp in my home. I'm a loving and forgiving father, so I put her on my lap, and I hug her and I say, "Don't cry, honey. Daddy love you and forgives you." Now usually the person I tell that story to says, "Well, that's what God ought to do." Then I ask the question, "Who pays for the lamp?" The fact is, I do. There's always a price in forgiveness. Let's say somebody insults you in front of others and later you graciously say "I forgive you." Who bears the price of the insult? You do.

This is what God has done. God has said, "I forgive you." But he was willing to pay the price himself through the cross.


Reference:
- Josh McDowell, "More Than A Carpenter" Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. (1977) p. 111-116.

From above...

"[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"

The word that the author Abra quoted has listed as 'rib' in this statement is actually (in the language of the original writings) translated as WOMB. (you know - that place where women carry the next generation prior to birth).

So then was adam the first trans gender?

I say the 'translation' we all enjoy reading is false because it has been 'twisted' by the interpreter to better reflect that person(s) world view.

and as far as 'some other way" by Josh McDowell...

More than a Carpenter aye, Less also than a God.

Yet the message is good...

Why then so much ado about the man...?

instead of the proper focus...

Upon the message...

The 'word'... for the man himself can not touch the hearts and minds of men (he is no longer upon the earth) yet his message still so touches.

Which then IS God, the word, or the man that is dead and no longer walks the earth.

Josh McDowell explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. His analogy simply doesn't work.

Beating someone and nailing them to a pole does not PAY for anything, UNLESS someone is appeased by that action.

So all Josh McDowell is suggesting is that God is somehow appeased by seeing someone SUFFER.

And that's utter nonsense.

These excuses people give simply don't stand up to reason.

Having someone nailed to a pole does not PAY for anything.

That is nothing short of utter SICKNESS.

That's the kind of thing that a DEMON would be appeased by, not a God.

There is no excuse or justification for these utterly absurd fables.

Why do people keep supporting this nonsense.

WAKE UP!

All that Josh McDowell is suggesting is that if someone rapes and murders someone else, then asked for forgiveness, it OK, because God PAID for that horrific act of VIOLENCE via another act of VIOLENCE by having his son nailed to a pole!

In order for Josh McDowell's analogy to actually WORK, if his daughter breaks a lamp, then he would need to PAY for that by breaking another lamp (not going out and replacing it with a nice new one). That wouldn't fit the crucifixion scenario.

This religion has horrific VIOLENCE being used to PAY for horrific VIOLENCE.

That's utter nonsense.

On the subject of Adam and Eve, I'm gonna paste what a friend says on the subject. Makes a convincing case.

"Why did God create man twice? For two different purposes, that's why.

Genesis 1: 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here's the first creation. Notice, he created MALE AND FEMALE.

And on what day?

Genesis 1: 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Man is created. But there is a problem...

Genesis 2: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Well, rut roh! Gotta fix THAT! So God creates a Garden and a dude... (this is AFTER the 7th day rest!):

Gensis 2: 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Now, what was the man's purpose??

Gensis 2: 15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Here, the Bible bends over backwards and forwards to make the point that Adam and Eve DID NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG!! Behold:

Gensis 2: 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

They are WHOLLY INNOCENT and they are already "doing something wrong" by being naked, AND DO NOT KNOW IT IS WRONG.

So how did "God" TRICK Eve into falling for "the serpent's" supposed lie??

God lied to Eve!

Let's take a closer look. What did he tell Adam?

Gensis 2: 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But what did he tell EVE??

Gensis 3: 1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

So GOD LIED TO EVE. He told Adam not to EAT it. But he told Eve that even TOUCHING IT would lead to death TODAY.

Nowhere does it say that Eve lied about what she was told. And if she LIED, then why is the LYING not a sin? If LYING was a sin, and Eve LIED about what God said, that would be the ORIGINAL sin.

Did Eve FORGET? God created his creation so poorly that these perfect beings couldn't remember something as simple as "don't eat the ****ing fruit"? Really, are we to believe that Eve couldn't recall what God said?

Of course not. GOD LIED TO HER. Then, he ignored it while the Serpent exploited his lie to make her disobey!

God didn't give two ***** about the nakedness and the lying... but when she ate the fruit, he had his excuse... his excuse for what?

How did he punish Adam and Eve for being AS INNOCENT AS HE CREATED THEM TO BE??

Genesis 2: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Genesis 3: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

This also opens up another topic too, the fact that God somehow created man twice. How does that make much sense? Once they're created the first time, that's it is it not?

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a platypus.

THis is yet another example of how the Word of God

will always become grossly misinterpreted by man, if the

Holy Spirit is not yet INDWELLING that man .

In order to RIGHTLY DIVIDE GOD'S WORD, man needs to FIRST be

BORN AGAIN, and THEN God's Holy Spirit INDWELLS him now, and

LEADS AND GUIDES him into ALL TRUTH.....and gives him the

Holy Spirit LED Interpretation of God's Word...AND NO LONGER

JUST MAN'S OPINION!!!



......


GENESIS CHAPTER 2 IS A RECAP OF GENESIS CHAPTER ONE !!!


REPEAT:


RECAP!!!!!

NO TWO CREATIONS OF MAN...JUST ONE!!!


SPIRITUAL DEATH CAME INSTANTLY THE VERY DAY ADAM AND EVE

SINNED...


REPEAT:


INSTANTLY....


AND A GRADUAL PHYSICAL DEATH FOLLOWED.

Number one, if it was a recap, wouldn't it be obvious? Doesn't seem it to me.........

Number two, of course if you are forced to believe the Bible to be true upon penalty of death, you're gonna think it to be true. You have no other option! That doesn't say much for its' debatability seems to me. It's nothing more than a way to deflect criticism away from it.

Lastly, I don't care what anyone says, you can NOT tell me it is fair to punish OTHER beings who had NOTHING to do with the original sin. That just makes no good sense, they had weren't around, couldn't have had a damn thing to do with the whole event, and yet they're gonna be held responsible? No way, I refuse to accept that. Even man knows better than that, and if man does, God sure as hell does too.

God DOES NOT FORCE or PUNISH UnBelievers, into

Believing in Him AGAINST THEIR OWN FREE WILL !!!!


LAST TIME I am repeating this :


GOD ALREADY KNOWS THAT NO MAN CaN BELIEVE , UNLESS

GOD FIRST GENTLY DRAWS HIM UNTO HIMSELF..... AND CONVICTS HIM

OF HIS SIN AND HIS NEED OF A SAVIOUR ..... FIRST !!!

Listening?


God NEVER CONDEMNS or FORCES people to BELIEVE IN HIM .


God Will NEVER go against man's free will...otherwise , God

would be an INTRUDER!!!

(Religiousity teaches nonsense like that.... )


BUT again, God WILL punish ...or dicipline.....or chastise...His


kids( those that are already saved).

Oy..... this is just pointless........

Please explain how someone can be "forced" into believing, even by a death penalty. You would have to first and foremost believe before it would have any form of control/influence over you.

It is only a story meant to illustrate a few common problems with
human existence.



The basic moral of the story is that if you do something which you
know to be wrong then you will have to bear the consequences and only
after the fact do you realize how good you had it prior.



God told them not to eat it. They ate it anyway. They learned from
the experience and lost their innocence.

It is a nice enough story. Not all that silly given it's source in
antiquity. Less silly in my opinion than those of the Greeks with
their many Gods staging a kind of Olympic sized soap opera.

Here at least there is only one God just multiple lessons and ways
of looking at things of philosophical and theological nature.



So rant all you like about it. They are only stories. Fun and
instructive stories which have been read and studied exhaustively.
Our first attempts at philosophical thought. Nothing wrong with
that - no bad reflection of God or people. At least I don't find it
to be confusing or lame or silly - just the story of Adam and Eve
from the Bible.

Abra, you're wanting to mix the NT into the OT to get your answers. Forgiveness didn't come along till the NT. God was a vicious, bloodthirsty, nasty S.O.B. until 2000 years ago. Then after requiring the death of his own son, he became all meek and loving, willing to forgive anyone everything, no matter how dispicable.

Talk about bi-polar to the extreme...

Interesting that in Gen 2, The Xian G_d clears makes every living thing as a helpmate for Adam, until he gives up and makes a woman. Imagine the implications!

Though venerated by most Judea/Christian religions, Adam and Eve are canonized as Saints by very few of them. Western Christians for the most part do not recognize them as Saints.

Personally, I believe that Eve’s Apple was supposed to represent the first case of good and evil. In my mind there was only good until the serpent came along to tempt Eve.

I don’t believe this was a magic apple from a magic tree, but that the act of disobedience made Adam and Eve, for the first time, experience regret and the shame that typically follows. Just as a child that has no real concept of right and wrong (even if they’ve been told) until they actually commit a wrong, and do not know shame until they feel guilt for the first time, so were Adam and Eve in the Garden. Once a child experiences this emotion for the first time, they weigh everything with that newfound gauge, just as Adam and Eve having now experienced shame, became conscious of their nakedness and viewed it as shameful.

To me, it’s not about the apple or the tree; it’s about disobeying their parents. I believe that it was God’s hope, just as it’s every parent’s hope, that their children will simply do what they say so they can guide them right past any unpleasantness of the world.