Who Sinned First?

[Age]

Assuming that the story is real.

What 'story'?

There are COUNTLESS 'stories', which have been told.

The story of Adam and Eve.

But, if "there is NO God", which is what you BELIEVE is TRUE, then OF COURSE the story of adam and eve is NOT real.

I questioned you about WHY you would blame some 'thing' which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist. Your answer and response here is just some warped and distorted nonsensical "reason", which is really just a completely illogical 'excuse'.

[bahman]

What 'story'?

There are COUNTLESS 'stories', which have been told.

The story of Adam and Eve.

But, if "there is NO God", which is what you BELIEVE is TRUE, then OF COURSE the story of adam and eve is NOT real.

I questioned you about WHY you would blame some 'thing' which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist. Your answer and response here is just some warped and distorted nonsensical "reason", which is really just a completely illogical 'excuse'.

People make stories all the time. There is no God/creator.

[VVilliam]

The OPQuestion is simply enough.

It is not asking if the god sinned, nor is it asking if you think 'sin' means 'wrongdoing' or not.

It is not asking you about any other story in the Bible.

It is asking "Which of the two individuals - "Adam" or "Eve" was the first to commit a wrongdoing, according to the storyline?"

[bahman]

The OPQuestion is simply enough.

It is not asking if the god sinned, nor is it asking is you think 'sin' means 'wrongdoing' or not.

It is not asking you about any other story in the Bible.

It is asking "Which of the two individuals - "Adam" or "Eve" was the first to commit a wrongdoing, according to the storyline?"

It was Eve.

[Dontaskme]

It is asking "Which of the two individuals - "Adam" or "Eve" was the first to commit a wrongdoing, according to the storyline?"

Eve is believed to have sinned first, even though eve did not know what the concept of sin was, so eve could not have sinned even if her life depended on it.

So it was a lie (belief) that eve was the first sinner, because eve was without knowledge of sin.

The belief eve had sinned was known in the effects of her innocent cause.

Cause and effect is when the not-knowing state becomes the known state, albeit a believed (lie) sort of knowing.

The cause and effect is a phenomena that gives off the illusion that there is a someone who has made a choice. And as the story goes, if God had not given Adam and Eve the choice, they would have essentially been robots, simply doing what they were programmed to do. God created Adam and Eve to be “free” beings, able to make decisions, able to choose between good and evil. In order for Adam and Eve to truly be free, they had to have a choice.

But even the word FREE is a lie. There is no such thing as a free human.

To be free, simply means to be free from something...freedom can only make sense in the context that there is a freedom FROM something not desired.

So humans are not really FREE beings, that was just another lie.

And is why the story of God is a load of crapola.

[VVilliam]

The OPQuestion is simply enough.

It is not asking if the god sinned, nor is it asking is you think 'sin' means 'wrongdoing' or not.

It is not asking you about any other story in the Bible.

It is asking "Which of the two individuals - "Adam" or "Eve" was the first to commit a wrongdoing, according to the storyline?"

It was Eve.

Can you say why you think the story tells us that Eve sinned first?

[VVilliam]

It is asking "Which of the two individuals - "Adam" or "Eve" was the first to commit a wrongdoing, according to the storyline?"

Eve is believed to have sinned first,

The question is not "who do you believe sinned first".

even though eve did not know what the concept of sin was, so eve could not have sinned even if her life depended on it.

Are you suggesting here that no one can do wrong as long as they do not know what "wrong" is?

Cause and effect is when the not-knowing state becomes the known state, albeit a believed (lie) sort of knowing.

Can you give an example from the story where it shows us that Eve did not know?

For example, If you are told not to do something and that to do so was wrong, and you did it anyway...does the story convey this information?

[bahman]

The OPQuestion is simply enough.

It is not asking if the god sinned, nor is it asking is you think 'sin' means 'wrongdoing' or not.

It is not asking you about any other story in the Bible.

It is asking "Which of the two individuals - "Adam" or "Eve" was the first to commit a wrongdoing, according to the storyline?"

It was Eve.

Can you say why you think the story tells us that Eve sinned first?

That is according to Bible.

[VVilliam]

It was Eve.

Can you say why you think the story tells us that Eve sinned first?

That is according to Bible.

You are claiming that the story itself tells us who sinned first? Can you show us where the story shows this is the case?

[Age]

The story of Adam and Eve.

But, if "there is NO God", which is what you BELIEVE is TRUE, then OF COURSE the story of adam and eve is NOT real.

I questioned you about WHY you would blame some 'thing' which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist. Your answer and response here is just some warped and distorted nonsensical "reason", which is really just a completely illogical 'excuse'.

People make stories all the time. There is no God/creator.

So, IF there is NO God/creator from YOUR perspective and story of things, then WHY did YOU say, God is the one who first sinned because God created a sinful situation?

[Skip]

The story itself says nothing about sin.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-3/

[The serpent having assured her that she would not die,]
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.

This sounds as if they were together and both ate pretty much at the same time, but it was her idea.
Then they discovered shame.

So when God found out what they'd done (so much for omniscience!), he was angry, first with the serpent,

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:

then the woman, who got extra punishment for being smarter than Adam, then the man

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;

Only then did she get a name.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

There is an implication here that they had been unaware of their genitalia, and of reproduction. One could argue that the original sin has not yet been committed, but they, both together, would get to it later tonight under a gorse bush. Sexual desire appears to be a component of God's curse.

They were expelled - not killed, just as the serpent predicted. This next sentence supposes that they were meant to be mortal all along, so the punishment didn't include death, just hardship.

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

There is also that little editorial slip about gods in the plural. That, and the two versions of creation back-to-back, indicate that the story was excised from at least one older tradition. This is the version adopted by the Constantine's committee, so i guess it can't be fixed for inconsistencies.

[VVilliam]

The story itself says nothing about sin.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-3/

[The serpent having assured her that she would not die,]
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.

This sounds as if they were together and both ate pretty much at the same time, but it was her idea.

Then they discovered shame.

So when God found out what they'd done (so much for omniscience!), he was angry, first with the serpent,

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:

then the woman, who got extra punishment for being smarter than Adam, then the man

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;

Only then did she get a name.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

There is an implication here that they had been unaware of their genitalia, and of reproduction. One could argue that the original sin has not yet been committed, but they, both together, would get to it later tonight under a gorse bush. Sexual desire appears to be a component of God's curse.

They were expelled - not killed, just as the serpent predicted. This next sentence supposes that they were meant to be mortal all along, so the punishment didn't include death, just hardship.

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

There is also that little editorial slip about gods in the plural. That, and the two versions of creation back-to-back, indicate that the story was excised from at least one older tradition. This is the version adopted by the Constantine's committee, so i guess it can't be fixed for inconsistencies.

There seem to be inconsistencies nonetheless.

Perhaps if we put on our detective hats and examine the story we can find out if indeed it was the case that Eve sinned first.

Facts [according to the storyline]

The god created Adams body as a cadaver [a non-living form] and breathed his 'life force' into the form so that it became alive. [thus the form was a container/avatar]
And 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.

Adam was created first and instructed by the god regarding the knowledge fruit.
He was told not to EAT it.
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

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

But 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.


Then the god made a variety of forms which he then made into living creatures [presumably by the same method as the god had done with Adams form.] because the god did not think it was 'good' for Adam to 'be alone' [even that the god was with Adam so we can't say Adam was 'alone' really.]

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;...

The god brought these beings to Adam and Adam named the beings. One of those being of course, Adam called a "Serpent"

...and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Out of all the beings created and presented by the god, there were none which were found a suitable 'help meet'.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The god had to think outside the box...this time he changed his method of creating...

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;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Adam appears to be very pleased with this new addition to the garden and he called her "Woman" because he was still naming things that the god brought to him and because he understood how she had been made [so the god must have explained to him the process of how the woman was created.]

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.

Then we have an interesting commentary on why a women leaves her parents and goes to be with man, as per the first Woman being created to be the helpmate of the First Man [tradition] only...wait...the commentary seems to have it backwards...

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

So okay - perhaps it is better understood that both men and women leave their parents and go to live with each other...as husband and wife. The important thing must be that they are living together for each other in love and support. Keep that in mind.

Then the finally bullet point in that part of the story is that they were created naked and were not clothed because they had no reason to wear clothes. The garden must have been temperate. However the mention of them wearing no clothes is not because of the obliging climate but to point out that the pair had no experience of being ashamed, and this was obviously pointed out in anticipation of the story-tellers intent to explain to us WHY the pair were naked.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Are you all with me so far?

Questions? Concerns?

[Skip]

[S - This is the version adopted by the Constantine's committee, so i guess it can't be fixed for inconsistencies.]
There seem to be inconsistencies nonetheless.

That's what I said. There are tons of them, throughout the OT, and even some in the NT.
The inconsistencies got in when the stories from Sumer and Akkad were passed down, adapted and translated into Hebrew, then probably Aramaic, then Greek, then Latin. The Council of Rome, and St. Jerome, missed a couple of oddities, but the official version was then adopted as holy writ, so we're stuck with it.

The god created Adams body as a cadaver [a non-living form] and breathed his 'life force' into the form so that it became alive. [thus the form was a container/avatar]

Nothing so fancy. In one version of the Sumerian/Babylonian myth (according to clay tablets, mostly broken) were having a beer party and started doodling with clay animals, then making caricatures of one another; the breath trick being the show-stopper, when everybody fell off their stools, laughing .
In another, the people are crawling around naked and hungry in a desert and the gods make sheep and grain for them.

And 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.

Alternatively, same book, a few pages back back:

G 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Adam was created first and instructed by the god regarding the knowledge fruit.
He was told not to EAT it.

Yes, I get that. Interestingly, too, in the previous version:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

They were all meant to be vegetarian. Hence the image of Paradise with the lion and lamb. Another interesting sidebar:

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

The Sumarian or maybe Akkadian gods made a whole race of black-headed people to serve in their garden.

But 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.

Except, of course, Adam hasn't a clue what dying is; he has not yet made any connection between disobedience, wrong-doing and punishment. He doesn't seem a particularly bright specimen, tbh.

Then the god made a variety of forms which he then made into living creatures [presumably by the same method as the god had done with Adams form.] because the god did not think it was 'good' for Adam to 'be alone' [even that the god was with Adam so we can't say Adam was 'alone' really.

Which is exactly backward from the first version, and very odd. What's he been doing for six days, if he's just getting around to oxen? In the first version, all the animals and fish and birds precede the humans, giving us the cherished illusion of being God's ultimate masterpiece.

whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Well, duh. Who else was going to talk to or about them?

The god had to think outside the box...this time he changed his method of creating...

Indeed! Why? I suspect this is a little bit of reverse-engineering done much later by a high priest who knew which side his pita was drizzled with olive oil.

Then we have an interesting commentary on why a women leaves her parents and goes to be with man, as per the first Woman being created to be the helpmate of the First Man [tradition] only...wait...the commentary seems to have it backwards...

That's not till Ruth; well into the settled agrarian period of Judah.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It's a version of the myth of the original two-headed, four-armed human, cut in half by the gods to reduce its power, and destined each to be unhappy until it finds its mate. (Funnily reflected in the myth of the Klingon Heart). The Greeks were okay with some of these soulmates being of the same sex; the Jews were emphatically not.

[And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.]
Are you all with me so far?

I covered all of that.

Got anything new?

[VVilliam]

To continue then.

What we have in that first biblical story, isn't really a story but bullet points regarding a story.

Analogy of that being the case is unto Sherlock Holmes [remember we have our detective hats on for this] walking onto a crime scene. A policeman tells him the bullet points of the situation but Sherlock has the eye of an investigator and can read the room far better for that.

The next set of bullet points go directly to the advent of the scene of the eating of the forbidden fruit. We are not informed how long a period went by from the last set of bullet points [the creation of other animals and of the Woman.]
It may have been a day, a week a year or a decade...and could even be significant information which has been left out.

Nevertheless the next scene we are introduced to the Serpent.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. ...

There are various interpretations re the word 'subtil' and it is generally regarded along the lines of being "cunning/of malicious intention"

As we know, Adam named the Serpent a "serpent" so we can conclude from that, that Adam was familiar with said creature.

...And he said unto the woman,

So we know that the Serpent could speak at least one language and be understood.
Since Adam would have known this to be the case with this particular being, it is likely that Adam and the being had some kind of relationship and certainly more of a relationship that Adam could have gotten from any of the other creatures of the garden that the god had created.
From this we can ascertain that it may have been likely that out of all the creatures which proved unsuitable as a help mate for Adam, the Serpent would have been the closest candidate for the role, because at least it could converse with Adam which would have been nice for Adam when Adams god was not there to help him in his aloneness.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

So next bullet point is the words the serpent spoke to Eve.

Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

From this one sentence we have some interesting evidence to examine.

Firstly: It is what is known as a "leading question" - a question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted.
Secondly: The serpent was aware that the god had given specific instructions regarding a certain fruit of a certain tree.

We know these, because after the Woman replies we get this from the serpent;

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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.

1: Where did the serpent get this knowledge from?
2: Was this knowledge true? [in relation to the bullet points about the story.]

Re [1:] There are 3 possible answers. The serpent got the information from the god, from Adam, or just made it up on the fly, winging things in relation to how the Woman replied to his initial leading question.

Re [2:] We know that after the pair had both eaten of the fruit they did not die. In fact according to follow-up stories, they did not die for many hundreds of years later. So it was either a lucky guess from the serpent, or he had some kind of inside information...which rules out Adam being the source of where the serpent got his information from - or at least that part of the information...but we shouldn't discount the idea that the serpent was surprised that when the Woman ate the fruit, that she didn't actually die. Which is to say, Adam still could have been the source from where the serpent got its information.

Back to that leading question. Since we know that the serpent already had the information re the forbidden fruit, he framed his question to the Woman in order that the woman would focus upon the one tree which she had been told "not to touch or eat of" because that was the tree the serpent wanted the Woman to focus on.

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

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.

Let us now go back to what the god had instructed Adam in relation to the fruit.

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

But 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.

We can see clearly here that the Woman believed that they were not even to touch the fruit and told the serpent as much. Since the serpent knew that this was not actually part of the gods instructions, the serpent had identified a possible weakness in the Woman's argument. Therefore IF it could get the Woman to simply touch the fruit and she did not 'surely die', then she would most likely also then eat of the fruit. [="Subtil"] Mission accomplished.

But what was the serpents motivation for getting the Woman to eat the fruit and die? We can examine that soon...

[VVilliam]

I covered all of that.

Got anything new?

Your examination of the evidence seems to be all over the place. I appreciate that you might know your stuff, but the focus of this thread is to try and identify who of the pair actually sinned first, so in order to try and find out, I am focusing on the story line which we all have, specific to that.