Who Sinned First?

[gaffo]

Adam or Eve?

That depends on where you start the sinning process. When Eve was talking to the Serpent, she had no clue as to good and evil or sin or any of that stuff: she had not yet eaten of the fruit. All she was concerned about was God having said that if they tasted that fruit, they would die --- which sounded sort of bad when He said it, but she didn't even know what death was. The Serpent said, "No, he won't kill you." and she, never having met anyone but Adam and God, had no concept of lies. So she believed him and took a bite.
The story doesn't say how long the knowledge toxin took to show effects. She went straight to Adam and offered him some, because they shared everything. He accepted it, because he was accustomed to being fed by his wife.
Later, once the knowledge of good and evil had got into his system, he used that as a lame excuse to spread blame to Eve and God: "it was given to me by the woman you gave to me"
At this point, was there a "sin"?
Can one sin when one has no understanding of right and wrong?

and of course the snake spoke the truth - eat and no die. so God lied about that/

reason tehy/animals dies is becasue non of them ate from the 2nd tree - tree of life/immortality which god removed shortly after the first transgression.

[gaffo]

Adam or Eve?

God because of creating a sinful situation.

yes Genesis YHWH is a small Summarian type - afraid to allow his creation to equal him via the 2 trees - and lying about on eof them then removeving the other.

chronos much?

God afraid of man - lol, but that is what the story is about.

[VVilliam]

Adam or Eve?

Eve

The evidence suggests that it was Adam...

[VVilliam]

Adam or Eve?

That depends on where you start the sinning process. When Eve was talking to the Serpent, she had no clue as to good and evil or sin or any of that stuff: she had not yet eaten of the fruit. All she was concerned about was God having said that if they tasted that fruit, they would die --- which sounded sort of bad when He said it, but she didn't even know what death was. The Serpent said, "No, he won't kill you." and she, never having met anyone but Adam and God, had no concept of lies. So she believed him and took a bite.
The story doesn't say how long the knowledge toxin took to show effects. She went straight to Adam and offered him some, because they shared everything. He accepted it, because he was accustomed to being fed by his wife.
Later, once the knowledge of good and evil had got into his system, he used that as a lame excuse to spread blame to Eve and God: "it was given to me by the woman you gave to me"
At this point, was there a "sin"?
Can one sin when one has no understanding of right and wrong?

and of course the snake spoke the truth -

At the time it was still a Serpent.

eat and no die. so God lied about that

Not at all - further stories indicate that Adam did eventually die. The lie [misinformation] was that Adam would die 'in the day' - if indeed that means "On the day" "At the same time"...

reason tehy/animals dies is becasue non of them ate from the 2nd tree - tree of life/immortality which god removed shortly after the first transgression.

Some animals would have been able to access that fruit as well as the forbidden fruit...there does not seem to be any suggestion in the bullet points that the author thought that the other critters would suffer or benefit from doing so.

[Skip]

reason tehy/animals dies is becasue non of them ate from the 2nd tree - tree of life/immortality which god removed shortly after the first transgression.

No, he didn't. He removed Adam and Eve. Made them leather clothes, which is odd, because it's the first mention in the bible of anybody getting killed, but they don't explain whose skin. Even more oddly, it's only the man he's worried about challenging the gods - almost like he's okay with the woman having the same knowledge, once he'd put her under her husband's rule.

Gen 3:21 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.

Far as we know, it's still there. Pretty well camouflaged, I guess.

[Age]

Adam or Eve?

Eve

The evidence suggests that it was Adam...

If the "evidence", to you, suggests that who sinned first was "adam", then so what?

Was there any purpose to this thread, other than you just showing and revealing what you assume and believe is true?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Adam or Eve?

The 'curse' in the Adam and Eve story is not originally literal. It was a means of passing on the general collective ideas from all cultures regarding why we as humans were distinctly intelligent enough over all other parts of nature yet appear unable to solve the question, why do we require suffering to live?.

"Adam" represents ANY first person, the 'atomic' being who seems to think differently to other animals, and "Eve" refers to all other people that follow. [And why 'eve-' terms are used expressively to refer to infinite concepts, like 'ever'. The terms, odd and even also relate.

The curse was about becoming intelligent (as the 'gods'). When we are all young we want to grow up quick thinking that being an adult would be ideal. But the curse is discovering that once you KNOW something, such as the 'secrets of the universe', you can no longer be privileged to be naive and are forced to recognize that struggle and death are not even something that the 'gods' (where they could exist) could prevent. The curse is the loss of our naivety and the recognizition of life not being so 'fair' as our minds as children would normally default to: that we cannot live forever. [Thus evening brings death in the comparative way of our sun each day, an inevitible reality.]

Note that the term, 'evil' has the root of Eve there too! So this is why the mistaken interpretation that the cartoon representing the concept of Eve, was necessarily relevant to sex or to individual persons.

What a load of convoluted nonsense. And 'evil' does not have the same root as 'Eve'.

[Skip]

Not even close! Eve comes from Hebrew - chavah: to breathe, to live. (in Genesis "the mother of all living") Evil come from German/Dutch - ubel or euvel: bad.

[Scott Mayers]

Adam or Eve?

The 'curse' in the Adam and Eve story is not originally literal. It was a means of passing on the general collective ideas from all cultures regarding why we as humans were distinctly intelligent enough over all other parts of nature yet appear unable to solve the question, why do we require suffering to live?.

"Adam" represents ANY first person, the 'atomic' being who seems to think differently to other animals, and "Eve" refers to all other people that follow. [And why 'eve-' terms are used expressively to refer to infinite concepts, like 'ever'. The terms, odd and even also relate.

The curse was about becoming intelligent (as the 'gods'). When we are all young we want to grow up quick thinking that being an adult would be ideal. But the curse is discovering that once you KNOW something, such as the 'secrets of the universe', you can no longer be privileged to be naive and are forced to recognize that struggle and death are not even something that the 'gods' (where they could exist) could prevent. The curse is the loss of our naivety and the recognizition of life not being so 'fair' as our minds as children would normally default to: that we cannot live forever. [Thus evening brings death in the comparative way of our sun each day, an inevitible reality.]

Note that the term, 'evil' has the root of Eve there too! So this is why the mistaken interpretation that the cartoon representing the concept of Eve, was necessarily relevant to sex or to individual persons.

What a load of convoluted nonsense. And 'evil' does not have the same root as 'Eve'.

"Evil" is from "Eve" + "el" and refers to "after thee", where 'thee' was a prepostion for "Adam", which in turn derives from the same term that gives us "Autumn" (intentional respelling to hide the connection), for "the fall". And in context to the Adam and Eve story, The intentional meaning of "evil" in English derived from a derogatory interpretation of Eve as the CAUSE of the fall. That "Eve" was not intended to originally mean anything literally bad, death is interpreted as what occurs after the fall, "Adam", which in turn was the reference of Earth's relative position to Aten (the sun).

The convoluted nonsense you speak of comes by those who reinterpreted ancient COMMON stories meant ONLY to aid the memory of people in a world where hardly anyone was even able to read, to become LITERAL beings. For example, Adam's "rib" [modern reinterpretations] would have been understood THEN as the male penis (as in 'boner') and held some humor to its original listeners. The overall intentional caricature used the names of the characters in their stories from common terms for normal everyday concepts then understood.

Examples: "Eden" was the place where the sun rose (the East), "Aten" was the noon sun, "Atum" the EVEning sun or its fall. When one culture wants to hide the root associations of some prior culture, people will alter subtle differences in spellings and/or pronunciations that evolve to appear as though they had no connection far off into the future. Today's religious interpretion of collections of writings (scriptures) of the past LOSE the connection in the same way game of 'telephone' proves to distort the original input messages by the biases of the listener passing on their INTERPETATION bias along with what they hear.

So the 'sin', human intelligence, was NOT a crime, but a rationalizing of DEATH for us humans who evolved to reflect upon our existence intelletually. Only later distortions of the initial mundane meanings are what makes those stories seem so unique and odd to us. We are 'cursed' to recognize death as the depressing reality relative to our naive childhood interpretation that we can live forever.

AS to the question of the OP, then, both characters caricaturing us all did not 'sin' in our modern interpretation as something 'evil'. Both 'sin' and 'evil' derive from non-devious meanings. "Sin" was likely from Greek where "sine", for example, and where our modern terms that use, "syn-" to refer to two parts coinciding in a whole. If any actual 'sin' is referenced, it is our intellect in contrast to what we would think (falsely) of other non-human animals as being 'naive' or relatively blind or dumb.

I think the story is clever for their times if one removes the religious literalist interpretations. Many other stories of supposed 'real' characters in the other books (or parts) of the Bible were also likely valid if understood in the context of the original writers without actual religious interpretations.

[Scott Mayers]

Not even close! Eve comes from Hebrew - chavah: to breathe, to live. (in Genesis "the mother of all living") Evil come from German/Dutch - ubel or euvel: bad.

The past people's based most words by how they sound. The sound of 'v' and 'f' were given to terms to refer to what we might think of when we use, "..." which CAN coincide to some similar meanings of distinct but related terms in other connected linguistic roots. The 'v' or 'f' sound that gave 'Eve' her name, referred only to "all that follow" and was cartooned as the generic female simply because they would have presumed the male's seed caused the birth of "all who follow".

We don't have to agree on exact roots to understand there are often coinciding links that seem to come from other cultures. But the roots meanings are linked, MORE in the past then now. For instance, the ancients did not name their children ARBITRARILY prior to determining their character. That is, you wouldn't see someone named in significant ancient texts who weren't named by terms that DEFINED them. And they were NOT named at or prior to birth other than as to reference to their parents' established names derived of the same process.

So names were actually explanatory descriptive terms about who they are AFTER they've fit in with the meaning of the label. That is, names were descriptions of who they became, not what their parents thought sounded like a nice name that parents today might use to name their child before they are born.

[Skip]

And that presumption regarding names and languages is based on - what? A biblical "past" where all "the ancients" were one root nation? Rather than an anthropological past, where the ur-peoples of Africa dispersed in all directions, established prehistoric tribes, scattered far apart and evolved in isolation, with no knowledge of one another's existence for many thousands of years, during which they all invented separate languages and belief systems.

So names were actually explanatory descriptive terms about who they are AFTER they've fit in with the meaning of the label.

In some cultures, the birth name was an endearment by the mother or grandparents, while the adult name given at the rite of passage. This second might be descriptive of their physical appearance, temperament or talent - or the time of year, or a wish or a fortuitous cloud formation... Later in life, they might earn extra appellations based on some exploit, remarkable event, or their status. In some cultures, the name given at the the infant's acceptance by the clan (which might be any time between the first successful breath and three years of age) was the one it would wear for life; in some, the child was named for a feature of the landscape or weather at the time of its birth; in some, the name includes a designation of their cohort or celestial sign; in some, the name would be a derivation of the father's and/or the clan's.
This last convention came to prevail in most of the aggragate tribes coming up toward and into civilization: as Moshe son of Joshua, Abu ben Adhem, Piet Jorgenson, or Sergei Sergeievich, to the point of being accepted as a surname. In civilizations where surnames became necessary for tax and conscription purposes, most of these were unimaginative: the occupation, location or a physical characteristic of the head of the household.

Anyhoo, ancient Judeans didn't name ancient Incas, Mongols, Maori or Teutons.

[Scott Mayers]

...

Language evolution is very interesting. It's worth its own thread. The initial languages were all based on sounds of nature and was still normally the common ways of interpreting each other from other places. But politics, especially emotionally affective areas like religion, has been the next biggest influence that intentionally would alter things like spelling or subtle pronunciations just to say that WE are different and not THOSE people. Economics aided this when trying to officiate letters that also stood for numbers, like how 'I' and 'J' evolved: the 'J' is just an 'I' with a hook meant to act like our lines we place on cheques to prevent alteration. Where 'I' (for one in Roman Numeric systems) would be at either end of a number was 'hooked' to do the same. Then it evolved, along with religio-political biases to divide the East-West biases to be pronounced differently.

For aiding in memory (and understanding of roots) etymology, even if not exactly known, helps to unravel history in language like a DNA footprint....a 'meme' instead of a 'gene'.

Anyways, thanks for your own input.

[VVilliam]

Eve

The evidence suggests that it was Adam...

If the "evidence", to you, suggests that who sinned first was "adam", then so what?

Was there any purpose to this thread, other than you just showing and revealing what you assume and believe is true?

I am not assuming anything. I have showed how the bullet points about the supposed event] clearly indicate that it was Adam, not Eve, who sinned first. That was the purpose of the thread.
Most Christians believe that the 'story' [such as it is] tell them that sin entered the world through Eve. Clearly that is not the case.

Do you have anything which shows that I am mistaken in my examination of the evidence?

[Dontaskme]

The evidence suggests that it was Adam...

If the "evidence", to you, suggests that who sinned first was "adam", then so what?

Was there any purpose to this thread, other than you just showing and revealing what you assume and believe is true?

I am not assuming anything. I have showed how the bullet points about the supposed event] clearly indicate that it was Adam, not Eve, who sinned first. That was the purpose of the thread.
Most Christians believe that the 'story' [such as it is] tell them that sin entered the world through Eve. Clearly that is not the case.

Do you have anything which shows that I am mistaken in my examination of the evidence?

This evidence is misleading information. Remember, you are talking about a story, and not the actual reader of the story which is all of us. Tell the truth about the story, that's all...don't make it about the reader.

Age is asking for you to tell the truth. Just tell the truth, and refrain from lying.

For example: no human person is ever born a sinner, just as no animal is a sinner when that animal deliberately kills another animal with no conscience or remorse for it's actions. And the reason the animal is not a sinner is because there is NO SELF inside an animal to claim it is a sinner.

This is not personal attack, it's about making aware that until we understand properly what the Bible and all other kinds of esoteric literature is saying, then we will continue to not know or understand ourselves and others. Find out WHO is the sinner before making false assumptions and beliefs that the sinner has an actual real existence.

[VVilliam]

If the "evidence", to you, suggests that who sinned first was "adam", then so what?

Was there any purpose to this thread, other than you just showing and revealing what you assume and believe is true?

I am not assuming anything. I have showed how the bullet points about the supposed event clearly indicate that it was Adam, not Eve, who sinned first. That was the purpose of the thread.
Most Christians believe that the 'story' [such as it is] tell them that sin entered the world through Eve. Clearly that is not the case.

Do you have anything which shows that I am mistaken in my examination of the evidence?

This evidence is misleading information.

That may well be the case, but it is all we have to go on...the bullet points.

Remember, you are talking about a story, and not the actual reader of the story which is all of us.

Everyone reads the same story differently regardless, yet we are not talking about an actual story but only bullet points.
In that, the bullet points do influence how people have thus seen things and how the seeing of things has allowed for people to act in accordance with the beliefs formed through the seeing.

Tell the truth about the story, that's all...don't make it about the reader.

I think I have done well to tell the truth about the bullet points, and am also telling the truth that it is NOT an actual 'story' at all...just bullet points.
A story is far more detailed and comprehensive. [Robin Hood/Tom Sawyer etc]
All we have are bullet points and all I have done is examine those bullet points in order to show that they reveal something other than what traditional religion tells us, about who sinned first.

For example: no human person is ever born a sinner, just as no animal is a sinner when that animal deliberately kills another animal with no conscience or remorse for it's actions. And the reason the animal is not a sinner is because there is NO SELF inside an animal to claim it is a sinner.

That is a question for science to determine through examining the behavior of animals.
From what I observe in the many nature docos, animals do indeed appear to have a sense of self within them.

The point of discussion/argument/debate is for the purpose of showing where another may be lying [not telling the truth] , not just accusing the other of lying.

This is not personal attack, it's about making aware that until we understand properly what the Bible and all other kinds of esoteric literature is saying, then we will continue to not know or understand ourselves and others. Find out WHO is the sinner before making false assumptions and beliefs that the sinner has an actual real existence.

What allows you think I have not already done so and this is precisely Why I am enabled to see the truth within the bullet points of the thing which makes up the story of Adam.