/lit/ - Literature

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

>>22362817
>What is the correct interpretation of the fall?
the devil, disguising as a serpent, basically did some doublespeak to tempt Eve's pride, to get her to try to be like God.
She then transgressed by disobeying God, and then Adam was tempted.
Adam too gave in.
he then erred again by trying to blame Eve before God.
Finally, they were, as justice demands, punished for sinning by being expelled from the garden.

in His love, God still blessed and clothed them before sending them off.

And yes, it's all literal and historical.

>>22362842
based

>>22362842

But what was the forbidden fruit? Did it represent or provide anything at all, or was it just a test from God?

Did it provide humans with self-awareness?

>>22362842
What was the serpent like before he was made to crawl on his belly?

>>22362955
we cannot know. The curse was put on it back in the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve were probably the only ones to know, seeing the animal both before and after it.

>>22362941
it destroyed their innocence. it was not the fruit in itself that did it, having those properties, but as a sort of "physical representation" of the choice to do so.

it was moreso the necessary consequence to free will. Since we can freely choose, there has to be a potential for evil (but not its actuality). the potential here is the forbidden fruit, which is the way Adam and Eve could end up disobeying God and marring His creation (themselves and everything). Not something put there to tempt, but a logical necessity since choice exists.

they were already perfectly self-aware, just not imperfect to do things like feel shame at their nakedness like they did after falling.
their own perception of it, perverted and distorted by the knowledge of evil, is what led them to feel shame.

finally, the devil, disguised as a serpent, tempted Eve through pride, saying that she should be equal to God and that she should eat the fruit to do so. she was, the same way the adversary fell, tempted by pride.
Adam, not being vigilant, did the same.
it's important to not exclusively blame Eve here, they both sinned equally in choosing to eat from the forbidden tree.

And, on the topic of God testing man, this video explains how you should see it pretty well:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR4AT0LMJ5c

>12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
kek what a KWAB, feminists were right

>>22363068
And on an unrelated note to the question, i'm unsure if this is something i hadn't realized before, but their videos are using really strange, progressive wording.
you should search for more knowledge elsewhere if you're interested, since that "woke" bias might take hold of your views if you watch them tip-toe around calling proper teaching true. Do also disregard the jarring use of "Jesus Movement" to refer to Christianity when talking about James in the end of that video. The rest of it is decent at explaining the gist of it.
I think the word study videos might still be salvageable too. (the ones talking about the meaning of certain words, like the one going through the shema and the ones on "bad words" like sin and such.)
Anyhow, careful with them.

>>22362955

>>22363112
And now i come back to a full disclaimer. Engage with care, they err in several basic teachings and doctrines, which i had forgotten about.
i can really vouch for the decency of that one video, pretty much.

>>22363068

What's your denomination?

Why the fuck did he put the tree there

>>22362817
Isn't it just the platonic soul into matter parable but with the added twist of giving evil separate reality from our experience of being in the realm of genera?

>>22363813
read >>22363068

>>22363602
raised protestant but i'm thinking of converting to Orthodoxy.
ironing out a few things, most importantly intercession of saints and mariology.
i personally think catholicism goes too overboard with dogma about Mary, and a few other theological points. I still have a lot to study, though.
i've felt quite touched by St. Gabriel Urgebadze's life
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOVB-6st9TU
here's a little documentary if you'd like. great channel btw.

>>22363813
There's probably some programming logic for planet building that requires a tree of knowledge to sustain certain growth paradigms we take as natural.

>>22363942
Adam and Eve modded their copy of Skyrim - and lo, they could no longer earn achievements.

>>22362941
>>22362817
It provided knowledge. Read "Dreams of a ridiculous man" by Dostoyevsky, it's only 30 pages long.

>>22363991
expound on that. seems to be something like Tolstoy's attempt at writing something about the Gospel (and missing the mark).

>>22363945
Best interpretation of the fall so far

>>22364004
Thanks for the updoots kind stranger uwu

>>22362817
Play Assassin's Creed II.

After the fall of Sofia, the abortion of the Demiourgos, the creation of the cosmos by Sofia, and the epiphany of the Son of Man, the angelic arkhons which were fashioned by the Demiourgos were given a choice: to succumb to the fate of the Demiourgos, and mix with the dark, or: to follow their destiny, and fulfill the telos that was revealed to them; Lucfier/Prometheus chose to benevolently rebel against the Demiourgos, in concord with God's will; this resulted in his fall, which will be redeemed; Eleleth/Helel chose to malevolently rebel against God, by firstly attempting to usurp the Demiourgos, in hopes of successfully usurping them both; this resulted in his fall —and, subsequently, in Adamu's, and Eva's, fall—, and subsequent trifurcation of his being into three partial selves: (I) Satan: the perversely inverted image of God, the Father; (II) "Lucifer": the perversely inverted image of the Son; (III) Beelzebub: the perversely inverted image of the Holy Spirit, with the Demiourgos for his newfound stepfather: the prime/original aberrant mixture of the light with the dark.

>>22362817
it is proof that satan gave us the gift of free will (allowing us to sin)
hail satan

>>22362941
Fall into duality

>>22362955
Winged like a dragon

Here's the only interpretation you need

the fall is to explain how people came to be, why people wear clothes, how they know good from evil, why women can get pregnant (and are supposed to serve men generally), and why snakes don't have legs. it echoes earlier creation myths where we are cursed with certain faults because of our own folly.
also the two creation accounts where writen by different people. read the NOAB. if biblical scholarship wavers your faith, you didn't have faith in the first place.

>>22366028
>utter bullshit and gaslighting
absolute classic.

>>22366028
also "biblical" "scholarship" is about keeping appearances of being neutral but trying your absolute hardest to claim the Bible is wrong.

>>22362842
I'm afraid the idea that the devil was the snake in the garden is nowhere to be found in Genesis 3. And indeed there is no concept of a "big bad" until the New Testament. In Job he is merely an angel in charge of testing people for God.

>Adam and Eve wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten the fruit
>the only way to gain immortality is to eat from The Tree of Life

Oof

>>22366093
here's a nicely explained little answer
>https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/satan/was-satan-the-actual-serpent-in-the-garden/

>merely an angel in charge of testing people for God.
Now that really is something that isn't said anywhere. The opposite, in fact.
the devil is a rebelling angel who was cast out of heaven for trying to be greater than God. in Job he is, as the title implies ('satan' means accuser), accusing Job of only being faithful because of his blessings.
As for tests, i've also linked a video further up showing the traps the devil sets, disguising them in "tests".

you're not arguing in honesty, anyhow. next come the rest of the gotchas.
in the offchance you are, study more. a man who just parrots something he listened elsewhere instead of reasoning about it is a fool.

>>22366113
I don't take Answers in Genesis seriously.

>>22366113
Also I've studied the shit out of the Bible. I was a Christard for 5 years. I started to get into apologstics and ironically it led me straight out of this nonsense. Ultimately I realized the person who made the most sense of the Bible of anyone I had heard was Bart Ehrman. I really started to gain insight into the text when I realized it was the collaborative efforts of men. I still believe in God tho, and maybe even Christ but I know the Bible is full of shit and completely untenable.

>>22366113
>the devil is a rebelling angel who was cast out of heaven for trying to be greater than God
That's not in the Bible.
That's from "Paradise Lost" by John Milton.

>>22366143
To be fair he "exegeted" (eisegeted) the Bible to get that mythology but its not exactly something that leaps off the page at you.

>>22366155
That sure is a fancy way of saying "he pulled it out of his ass".

>>22366143
Isaiah 14:12-14
>How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations. You said in your heart: “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God. I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the far reaches of the north. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
Luke 10:18
>And He said to them, "I beheld Satan having fallen as lightning out of heaven."
Clear as day.

>>22366119
it's a decent explanation. i could word it differently if that appeases.
>>22366133
you haven't. you think you do. that's the whole problem; you pridefully think to know better than anyone else, and only listen to the people who are like you, doing the same and reinforcing your wrong views.
Go look into proper apologetics and theology if you're honest about it.
Anyone with a basic grasp of theology could refute Ehrman (and he even does it to himself on a few occasions by proving himself wrong with Scripture mid-argument).
>>22366155
>not exactly something that leaps off the page at you.
any more obvious and it might slap you.

>>22366195
>two passages which barely support argument
I guess this must be the power of protestant theology

>>22362817
It's a Jewish story to explain why they were slaves instead of masters like the Egyptians & the Romans. They needed a cope - now all the slaves of the world use it.

>>22366223
>ad hominem
again, be honest. you're purposefully being obtuse right now.

>>22366195
>Isaiah 14:12-14
This passage is a statement referring to Israel, there is no way you can read the previous passages and interpret it as anything else as it's a direct quote of someone speaking to the nation of israel. You haven't read Isaiah and it shows.

>>22366880
also meant to add
>Luke 10:18
>>And He said to them, "I beheld Satan having fallen as lightning out of heaven."
This is the new testament, so not a response to the fact that there isn't a big bad in OT theology that is a new testament thing inspired by Zoroastrianism.

>>22366886
it was a response to another reply, so don't try to attack it on that basis. again with the dishonesty?
>>22366880
context is everything when it benefits you, eh?
and, you're mistaken here. it's referring to Babylon.
the historical Babylon and its king, and the metaphorical Babylon of sin, and its king.
i'll let you guess who that one is.

All history in the Bible has its proper historical meaning, and also another, prophetic or metaphorical one.
You've also not read the prophets to not get that.

>>22367012
and more of Bible Project to help my points
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzWpa0gcPyo
man, if only these guys were perfectly theologically sound. It'd be great.

>>22366133

LOL
you never knew God to begin with.

>>22365987

Nice 2009 meme. You atheists are getting uppity again.

For comparison, here is a passage from the Qur'an:
>By the Fig and the Olive,
>And the Mount of Sinai,
>And this City of security,-
>We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,
>Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low,-
>Except such as believe and do righteous deeds: For they shall have a reward unfailing.
>Then what can, after this, contradict thee, as to the judgment (to come)?
>Is not Allah the wisest of judges?

>>22362817
It's spelled out for you right there.
LIZARD PEOPLE.

The destruction of God's creation by destruction of the genetic code.

>>22366133
>I really started to gain insight into the text when I realized it was the collaborative efforts of men.
but the bible is pretty up front that it's written by an array of mortal men? i mean the new testament books are the names of the dudes who wrote it and none of them are jesus so like idk what you were expecting there?

>>22368293
Nta but nobody questions the fact that mortal men wrote it, but they do question the "divinely inspired" narrative.

>>22367037
Nta but I really liked your posts man. You probably already know him, but InspiringPhilosophy's yt channel may be of your liking. It's mainly about apologetics.

>>22368609
how do you falsify if something's "divinely inspired" or not though? i'm not religious but i always find it weird when these hardcore true believers like erhman suddenly find out the bible isn't 100 percent factual and get their mind blown and become atheists.

It was basically the end of freedom (freedom is self-binding). Eve chose to become a pawn of the devil (the beginning of objectification). Becoming an object of his plans was easier than the burden of freedom and the burden of having full consciousnesses and responsibility, which only existed in the garden as it co-existed with restraint. Restraint is the ultimate symbol of freedom and defense against outside objectification. Adam followed her because he loved her (love strives to cover guilt). He thought he could save and fix what she did through the power of his love
epic fail

>>22362817
Adam probably knew the moment that bitch eve started talking about talking serpents and magic apples that she was the craziest piece of puss on the planet, she also happened to be the only piece of puss on the planet, so like a dumb ass he took a bite out of that apple so he could keep fucking her.

>>22362842
>She then transgressed by disobeying God, and then Adam was tempted.
If the fruit is what gave man free will/knowledge of good and evil, how was it sinful to eat the fruit when they didn’t know it was evil and didn’t have free will. Further, didn’t eating that fruit eventually lead mankind to Heaven? I’m struggling to see the flaw of eating the fruit.

>>22369825
This.
It's the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
Prior to eating the fruit they literally could not know that "disobeying" God was even good or bad.
People are basically retarded and can't.

You can't sin if you don't know.

>>22362817
>17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
>11 Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
>3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
>3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
>4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.
You basically have to read it backwards to understand who said what to who

>>22369825

Adam and Eve knew right from wrong. Hence God telling them not to do it. The forbidden fruit was literally just a choice to engage in pride versus obedience. They chose pride/self over humility/God.

Remember that everything Satan says is a lie/twisting of the truth.

>>22370898
How did they know right from wrong without eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why is the tree even called that if people already had the knowledge? Why does man have such knowledge while animals don’t, if not because man ate from the tree while the animals didn’t?

>>22362941
The apple of the knowledge of good and evil is what allowed Adam and Eve to "know better" the same way experience and good parenting allow a child to "know better".
>Don't be mad at little Timmy; he didn't know any better
>You're and adult, you ought to know better by now

That sort of thing.

>>22368115
Not an atheist.
Just sick of faith-based religion.
Spirituality is too important of a subject for anyone to sanely be satisfied by appeals to authority.
You may as well bring back phlogiston theory.

>>22371270
Bumping this question

>>22371270
God defined right and wrong for them by giving them rules to live by.

>>22373591
How did they know that disobeying God is wrong without eating the fruit yet? If they understood right and wrong then what does the fruit actually confer someone when they eat it?

>>22366195

>I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the far reaches of the north.

Indeed.

There were other people alive at the time (the sons of man) who were bestial compared to the children of god. This is how adam and their sons reproduced when kick out of the garden (the only alternative would be that cain and seth had sex with eve).
the fall was eve having sex with one of the men who was around. this sinful act gave birth to cain and the evil spawn of his generations. this was the sin which set about strife and evil forever which persists to this day. this question of reproduction and the struggle of the spawn of the evil and the good is the main problem fundamental to human nature and women's frailty and susceptibility to the evil ones is their fundamental flaw
i don't think i came up with this but i've been thinking about it

>>22368130
the writing style of the koran always makes me sleepy. it's hypnotic and nonsensical

I don't know the bible but in quran the myth of the fall is more about obediance.
When god made adam ,he was made from dirt ,and he told all creature to bow to him.but only satan/ibliss refused and said that he was no lesser than man because he was made of fire while he was made of dirt and to prove it he tempted him to eat from the sacred tree.
So god cast both of them out of heaven and satan vowed to tempt all of mankind to disobey the word pf god and god vowed to be always be forgiving.

God gave us all free will but he test us to if he have restraint.

Prophet abraham did not produce a child until he was old and after he raised jacob and loved him dearly God gave him a test of faith.
Give your son to me.
And they obeyed.
And god sent a great lamb from heaven and abraham put down his blade.

That's god,you must submit yourself to his will at all time.you must chose to obey him unconditionaly.
When you kill your ego then you will be free

>>22362817
"Stuff jews made up"

>>22368615
thank you!
i do know IP, he's pretty nice. thanks for the suggestion!

>>22371270
>>22369825
you're misunderstanding the tree.
they already had free will, reason, and discernment.
they were, however, innocent. Not in the sense of ignorance, but of being truly good.

the true sin of eating it was in the pride of the disobedience.
i literally answered that further up the thread.

>>22369825
>eventually leads to heaven
Solely by God's mercy and love, after we've brought death, decay, and suffering upon ourselves.
also, as opposed to staying perfect in the garden, with God.
the Garden of Eden was not the "pre-Heaven" you're taking it for.

for a lackluster example, a kid with a hot stove.
you're told it'll hurt and burn if you put your hand there, but you do it nonetheless.
it will heal after your father takes care of the wound, but you did not need to burn yourself. you were already healthy (perfect) before burning your hand (sinning).
to build upon it, you chose to put your hand on it after being told what would happen because a stranger put his head through the window and said it would feel good, and that your father merely didn't want you feeling the good thing like him, or wanted you "inferior".
basically what >>22370898 posted, they were tempted into pride, away from humility and into trying to elevate themselves to be perceived "equals" to God.
surprising to see someone do a nice and correct post like that.

I like prometheus + pandora's box better.

>>22362817
That the devil was a nigger

>>22376119
What do you mean. Why even bother writing this

>>22375449
Then why is Jesus called the Son of Man? I wouldn’t think he’d share that title with some beast-men.

>>22375828
Ok but they already had knowledge of good and evil, then why is the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
In that previous message, someone said “Adam and Eve knew right from wrong. Hence God telling them not to do it” but that doesn’t really answer these questions. Why did God call the tree “of the knowledge of good and evil” if they already had knowledge of good and evil innately, and thus it didn’t actually give one such knowledge? There would then be pretty much nothing special about the tree.

“>eventually leads to heaven
Solely by God's mercy and love, after we've brought death, decay, and suffering upon ourselves.
also, as opposed to staying perfect in the garden, with God.
the Garden of Eden was not the "pre-Heaven" you're taking it for.”
Man would not be able to go to Heaven without eating the fruit and thus knowing of good and evil. It’s why animals aren’t typically thought to go to Heaven. Eden is what man needed to escape from, as it’s definitely not Heaven—perhaps even its opposite.

>for a lackluster example, a kid with a hot stove.
>you're told it'll hurt and burn if you put your hand there, but you do it nonetheless.
Obtaining knowledge of good and evil is the same as touching a hot stove? It appears to be a requirement to get into Heaven though. God has knowledge of good and evil, so this fruit’s nature is clearly not evil, as God is Good. God includes no sinful nature within himself. The only sin here could be disobeying God, but he doesn’t come up with rules arbitrarily—and, if he was simply telling us to wait to eat the fruit to “grow with him” as I’ve heard some say, then it’s still better to eat it early than not at all.

>>22376829 (me)
Let me actually expound upon how I see this discussion.

My argument: God called The tree of the knowledge of good and evil “The tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because… it confers knowledge of good and evil.

Your argument: God called it the tree of knowledge of good and evil when it doesn’t actually give knowledge of good and evil, because…

It's a 16.000 year old attempt to explain why snakes bite people, why is there adversity and thorns in this otherwise "good" world.
The fruit is earthly pleasure in general including lust and adversity arises from pursuing that. Later people looking for specific literal fruit associated the idea with psychedelics thousands of years ago.
The story gets retold in different forms including in the Bible, often the previous era, whatever that was is considered the golden age before the fall, there's rarely any grasp on timescales.
The physical location of Eden and ancestors of all humans is an island the Greeks called Erythia which is not an island anymore, it's Morocco. Hercules goes there, faces the serpent and steals the golden apple. He has a "good" life but also gets the fruit, partly by embracing adversity as a great warrior.
After all that and more we're in a context where people are expecting more great mythical warrior kings like Hercules to show up regularly, they're basically demigods. Alexander unites the world but loses it all showing the world the deep flaws in brute strength.
Now both Christianity and the first Roman emperor (divi filius) emerge at the same time and later merge into one entity. Now the great fight is a spiritual one and you can embrace adversity and become part of the divine story without being Hercules. Now books matter to the common man.

>>22368112
Try to find the word "Christian" in my post. Good luck. But I would say I know God better than ever.

>>22368643
OP here. I literally said I wasn't an atheist. In fact I'm researching esoteric Christianity.

>>22366085
NTA but it's clear that the Bible was mixed together from a variety of sources and redacted into a single volume around 3400 years ago. Storytelling structure evolved over time (e.g. focusing on singular authors is a relatively modern bias) and there used to be no problem with mixing work from various sources into a narrative that's thematically coherent but stands out as contradictory to modern people (e.g. plotfags). Fedora tippers are largely ignorant of that aspect and they'll always retreat to regurgitating variations on the same simplistic argument of "IT HAS TO BE PERFECTLY COHESIVE [by my standards] BECAUSE SKYDADDY IS MAGIC! I'M SMART FOR POINTING THAT OUT!".

For a related example there are differences in how the voice of God is projected to the audience (e.g. it's more direct with the 10 commandments and becomes mediated through the finer details of the specific norms given to Moses as an intercessor).

>>22371270
Great question to be honest.

>>22371270
>>22377743
Another great question is: if you just could stay in Eden if you are pure, then why would God let the devil be roaming around dick swinging? Shouldn't he have been banned first then Adam and Eve?

>>22370898
>How did they know right from wrong without eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
God's command versus being forced to have the responsibility of weighing such for oneself (which is the point of the story). You can argue "how would they know following God's command was good" but the key point is that the differentiation is between living by command (which is innocent--even if you look at something modern like defences used at Nuremberg) and bearing the weight of moral responsibility (which humanity does because it broke the command and gained knowledge). Eating from the tree makes them God-like in a specific regard and you can have a deep discussion of what that means.
>Why is the tree even called that if people already had the knowledge?
They didn't have knowledge of good and evil. They had a command rooted in the basic impulse to follow the order.
>Why does man have such knowledge while animals don’t, if not because man ate from the tree while the animals didn’t?
Man is created in the image of God. Both creation narratives relate this (e.g. man naming the animals in one and man itself being the crescendo in the other; I'd have to consult a Bible to give other examples).
>>22377759
>why would God let the devil be roaming around dick swinging?
The serpent is an ancient symbol of wisdom and that's why it shows up in Genisis (links to Satan came about later through Christianity). The main thing to point out here is that the Bible is based in the poetic frame of language (i.e. it speaks through metaphor and archetypes). One interpretation can simply be that the snake played a role in mankind's intended development. The obvious question would be: then why did punishment ensue? For that you reflect on the weight of becoming god-like in terms of thought (knowledge of good/evil) and having a level of dominion over creation.

>>22376870
Fedora tippers are literalists, anon. This is further compounded by the fact they're autistic as well.

>>22371270
>>22373576
>>22377743


Only Satan told them that. It was a twisted truth. It was the knowledge of good and evil in a way that only God can know. Mankind can never know what is ultimately truly good. Only God can know that.

>>22377981
>They didn't have knowledge of good and evil
And thus they were incapable of sin, but it opened the door to sin—and thus to Heaven as well. I don’t really disagree with this post.

>>22372835
>Just sick of faith-based religion.

Dude. Everything in your entire existence is faith-based. You think you can truly know anything? lol Everything is a leap of faith other than knowing that you exist.

The point of the story is that humans having the capacity to choose their actions and commit evil ones is incompatible with having immortality and living in a utopia. So people now have to fuck and give birth and earn their keep through work and compete for resources to continue surviving as a race as a result of having this capability. The serpent represents flawed rationality, it gives Eve a half-truth and she doesn't question it because she does not understand the concept of a lie - so she believes what it says and acts on it. The fruit represents knowledge and basic understanding of morality. She eats it and entices Adam too as well, because most actions that a man will take in his life is in pursuit of and behest of a woman (hence why nearly every culture has a female figure representing the idea of fate). They suddenly gain sapience and awareness of themselves as thinking and choosing beings, and their covering up of their bodies represents human ability to feel shame, guilt, and remorse which is consequent of understanding morality and your place in relation to others. The garden represents being one and in balance with the natural world as lower beings incapable of complex thought and moral choosing. Humans evolving beyond instinct and having the ability to make complex decisions puts us intriniscally out of balance with the natural world and having immortality as a deity would essentially turn us all into demiurges so YHWH curses human beings to be at the mercy of nature and entropy to prevent this from occurring.

And then the New Testament is basically the reverse of this. YHWH comes down himself as a mortal being. tells the Jews they fucking ruined everything he told them to do so they convince the Romans to execute him for sedition, and with his death and defiance of the natural world through resurrection, allows human souls to become one with Him again after their body passes.

It's pretty straightforward, too bad Christcucks ruined it with Creationism.

>>22376829
>Then why is Jesus called the Son of Man? I wouldn’t think he’d share that title with some beast-men.
I mean I just made up the term for that context, it wasn't actually used in genesis.

>>22378133

>It's pretty straightforward, too bad Christcucks ruined it with Creationism.

*Protestants

Catholics have it right

>>22378130
>And thus they were incapable of sin
The idea of "sin" isn't mentioned in the narrative and is a later infusion that comes about via Christian influence and theology. However, it's not like it's an absurd reading to say that breaking the command and in so doing assuming the responsibility of moral knowledge explains sin.

>>22378256
The eating of the fruit opens the door to sin, but cannot be a sin in itself. Knowledge of good and evil kicked man out of the hedonistic paradise, and opens the path to the true Heaven.