The snake (of the trouser variety) tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit (hanky panky) that she shares with Adam. The consequence of which is painful childbirth.
They’re even specifically stated to be naked for this situation.
Nah, the nakedness was meant to symbolize humanity gaining self-awareness, which separates them from the purity and innocence of other animals. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, they realize they’re naked and feel instinctively ashamed of that (as most people would, but regular animals wouldn’t), so they cover themselves with leaves. In fact IIRC, the fact that they’re covering themselves up is what tips off God that they ate the fruit.
Which begs the question what the actual intention behind the allegory was.
I suspect that pursuing knowledge is bad and you should not do it and trust in god instead? It fits with the church’s then (and partially now) stance I suppose.
God said do/don’t do a thing. Person didn’t listen. Person is punished.
Respect mah authoritay!
Because people are inheritly sinful
“The Church” isn’t a part of this. This was Judaism. Christians inherited this.
Isn’t church commonly used for any religious order?
For Judaism it would be Synagogue rather than church, the more general term would be temple I guess? Or maybe there’s some word that encompasses any religious leaders in general.
It’s a much older story than the Catholic Church tho. Obviously older than Christianity as a whole right? It’s one of the oldest parts of the Torah/Old Testament. It did change over time, but I believe it has much more religious implications than political.
In any case, I believe it’s a story to explain our difference from animals, our apparent separation from creation while also being a part of it. An attempt, within the metaphysics of early Semitic religions, to answer one of the most fundamental questions humans always had: what are we and what are we doing here?
I also like some of the more esoteric interpretations, so idk
According to World History Encyclopedia, the story is adapted from non-Israelite, near eastern myths.
… the concept of a “garden” of a god(s) was a very common metaphor in the ancient Near East of where the god(s) resided. For the narrator of Genesis, the “Garden in Eden” was imaginatively constructed for an etiological (origin or cause of things) purpose, not as a divine residence, but of the first man and woman on earth – Adam and Eve. As generally accepted in modern scholarship, Genesis 1-11 is labeled as the “Primeval History,” which includes mythologies and legends that were very common not just in Israel, but throughout the ancient Near East. These myths and legends are not Israelite in origin but were adapted by the biblical writers for either polemical or rhetorical purposes.
It’s the widely accepted theory yes
I’ve heard a theory that it was a myth based on the transition from hunter gatherers to farming. In the Euphrates and Tigris triangle, living conditions were very favourable for humans and may have seemed like paradise in hindsight. Then population pressure triggered the transition to farming, i.e. toiling “by the sweat of your brow”.
It’s the other way around. Agriculture was easier, not harder, it allowed rapid population growth with much less risk and improved survivability, making enough food for more people more easily, which led to a demographic explosion and the rise of cities. It’s the exact period of about 2~3000 years where population centers grew from hundreds of people, to thousands of people, to tens of thousands, having to build communal centers to store all the food to give out to those who can’t work.
While agriculture allowed for vastly larger supplies of food and surpluses large enough to sustain cities (and even non-working ruling classes) it wasn’t “easier” per se. If we look at modern day hunter-gatherer groups they expend about the same calories as they bring in, but they typically work fewer hours per day than do agricultural peoples, leaving them with more leisure time. A combination of sedentism and the ability to produce a surplus of food and probably some factors we are just not privy to in the historical record made agriculture more appealing, and it absolutely made it more capable of supporting cities and empires. But easier isn’t really a good descriptor.
Easier on average, still. Of course the labor was different - more long lasting strain and stress that we can see in the bones and the teeth, but with less everyday danger from going out. One hunter-gatherer may have more free time, but half of the population of a city can straight up do something else for a living. I’m no expert in why hunter-gatherers couldn’t do the same, probably something to do with storing food all year round without rotting, but the massive difference in how many people could be fed with a lesser fraction of people doing the works, mathematically shows that agriculture was more energy efficient per head over the years. The population jump from hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands in cities like Eridu then Uruk during that period is insane.
Oh undoubtedly more efficient and better for a large group of people. I just mean to say in the matter of the person securing foods, hunting-gathering is less work per day/week than is farming. Or, at least, that has been the consensus of all my anthropology professors and the papers I’ve read. But if there’s counter evidence to it, I’d genuinely love to read it if you offer a keyword or two for the search. I love reading anthro papers so fricking much. Lol
On the progress into agriculture and cities, my book recommendation is Mesopotamia - the invention of the city, by G. Leick
I do like this, but I can’t imagine how anyone would come up with this at a single point in time. Like if you were a farmer at that time, would you have any concept or understanding or even supposition that just a few thousand years ago your ancestors just swanned around plucking juicy apples from trees?
That’s what myths are.
. In fact IIRC, the fact that they’re covering themselves up is what tips off God that they ate the fruit.
You mean the all knowing all seeing deity didn’t know about it until they got dressed?
They also successfully hid from Yahweh in the garden, and he had to search for them.
I think that’s more about they disn’t come out to greet him. Like if you got home from work and your dog doesn’t come out wagging, you immediately know something is up.
Of course, it still ignores precognition, but then God as described in the bible is literally impossible in so many ways, so…
Children also don’t feel shame about being naked until they gain the knowledge of sexuality. Parents would probably notice a child covering themselves up after an encounter of that nature.
I’m also assuming the story would be altered in a number of ways to change the meaning to the biblical one.
I think you are confusing what OP is saying with what the Bible says.
I took it more along the lines of “this story existed and was originally meant to teach young girls not to be tempted” and then the writers of the Bible came along. They used a common story to help with the point they were trying to get across.
This is not too far off from what is commonly known about pivoting the pagan ritual for the winter solstice and dressing up a pine tree. Now know as Christmas tree.
(as most people would, but regular animals wouldn’t)
Yeah, but it’s religion that makes people ashamed. Don’t get me wrong. I’d prefer not to see your asshole. But other than that, it’s probably learned shame more than anything.
Don’t be such a prude! #FreeTheAnus #BungHoleTanning #BreezeOnYouButthole
Are you my cat?
Yes! Jesus, I’ve been trying to get your attention for months on here! Finally you notice!
Now pet my belly exactly 3 times so I can bite you.
SCOOTALOO GET OFF THE INTERNET IT IS BAD FOR YOU
Dramatically runs from the room
They realize they’re naked and feel instinctively ashamed (as most people would…).
For the sake of readers familiar only with Abrahamic traditions we might add “in that community.”[1]
Their notion of nudity’s inherent sexual shame was weird in broader antiquity where mores re: nakedness were more often related to decorum or social status. Abrahamic religions all regard the human form as carnal, one way or another, so even today the weirdness persists in the laws and conventions of secular cultures, but still it isn’t universal.
That community by modern estimates was a group of Judean captives in Babylon (near Baghdad) c. 540 BCE who began compiling the oral traditions (ancestral folk tales) that had been preserved in exile. ↩︎
How would an omniscient, omnipotent Deity not know what happens in their own garden?
Nakedness could be a reference to vulnerability, eg naked truth.
It was an update of Prometheus.
He gave fire to humans
Lucifer (the lightbringer) brought humans the knowledge of agriculture. And humanity left behind the “garden”. Which was an allegory for hunter/gather society.
Which led to the concept of land ownership, vasly increases how much personal property someone could accumulate, and was pretty shit for the average human.
Having them be naked was more to make people think of pre-agriculture as pre-human.
Can you imagine how hard it was to convince people to work 10-14 hours a day for someone else’s profit when for thousands of years their ancestors had a much easier life?
Do you have any sources to back this up? I’m genuinely curious.
On a surface level this is an interesting interpretation. However, agriculture predates Abrahamic religions in that part of the world by thousands of years. As far as I know agrarian societies (and the concept of land ownership) were already well established.
The story of Prometheus doesn’t even predate the earliest forms of Genesis by very much.
Also, if they meant Christianity conquered the Celts. No. That was mostly Julius Caesar, who slaughtered at least a quarter of them, enslaved another quarter and the remainder were tricked into shit land deals for wine and Roman weapons(just like their French, Spanish and British descendants would to most of the rest of the world ~1500-1700 years later.)
I feel like between agriculture and hunter/gather, a garden makes a lot more sense as an allegory for agriculture.
Well, the whole “garden” thing is after a lot of translations…
Don’t focus on the name, focus on how it’s described.
It’s a pretty on the nose description of a hunter/gather lifestyle. Obviously idealistic, but all evidence of hunter gather lifestyles we have, is it was pretty chill the vast majority of the time. Especially compared to early agriculture which was basically slave labor.
People needed a reason not to dip out and go back to living in the forests until human population increased to the point that wasn’t possible.
The Abrahmic religions were a great tool for that, especially since it replaced earlier pagan religions.
One daddy to rule them all
Being a hunter/gatherer was much easier than agriculture?
Going off modern analogs and historic evidence, they had to work about 20 hours a week or even less…
Look at pretty much any other animal, most of their time is hanging out resting while either being ready to run after food or run away so they’re not food
With a low population density, it wasn’t that hard for a tribe to get enough food for everyone.
Life was pretty sweet for everyone from what we can tell.
Does that count having to find or build shelter every time you had to relocate?
Why did a number of native American tribes settle and become agrarian? Seems unlikely it was forced by wealthy landowners.
Why did a number of native American tribes settle and become agrarian? Seems unlikely it was forced by wealthy landowners.
…
Companies advertise their products, do you think the only people that buy them are ones who have seen the advertisements?
What does that have to do with my question?
Why did a number of native American tribes settle and become agrarian? Seems unlikely it was forced by wealthy landowners.
I said Abrhamic religions were an advertisement for agriculture.
You asked my why anyone would move to agriculture if it hadn’t been advertised to them.
I was trying to help you realize that.
No you didn’t, and no they weren’t, and no I didn’t. Also I was talking before the arrival of the Spanish (though I only implied that part).
I think it may skew the numbers a bit if you count hiding / running away from predators as working.
Nah, how much time do you think your ancestors actually spent being chased by sabre-tooth tigers?
Do humans have enough predators for that to be relevant?
deleted by creator
Do you have a good source for the life expected claim? That sounds interesting.
I do see some articles/blogs that claim that we’re just getting back to the same adult life expectancy, but the majority of sources that look like they’re actual studies or point to read data I can find don’t seem to match. Seems more like it was not totally uncommon to live to 70 or 80, but if you survived to 30 or so (which was a much bigger if, even excluding infant mortality), you were probably going to make it more to about 50 or so.
Studies of relatively modern hunter gatherers seem to be similar. And of course how hostile the environment was made a difference.
But would be interested in reading more on it if you have some good sources
deleted by creator
Somebody worked out that hunter/gatherers only averaged 4-5 hrs of work a day. I think I’m pulling this from a recent episode of ‘No Such Thing as a Fish’
when for thousands of years their ancestors had a much easier life?
There was no such thing as an easy life pre-1900
No, it’s pretty arguable that the first nations of the “Pacific North West” had it ridiculously good for a hunter-gatherer society.
Which is why they didn’t progress into “more advanced” tools or housing; they didnt need to. For example, Western Red Cedar is very close to a perfect wood. Grows quickly, grows very straight, little to no knots, easily split and can be turned into fibers for clothing, but its also fairly strong and can be made into structural housing. And it’s naturally rot resistant.
Hell, they made ocean capable dugout canoes from them, as well as everything else from homes to totem poles, artwork, furniture and clothing. Then for food they had rudimentary agriculture for some items, but most of the coastal diet was Pacific Salmon, caught though spears or nets.
As far as I understand it, the only aggressive culture in the region was the Haida because they lived on relatively small chain of islands. Everyone else basically just lived and partied.
Any sources for this information? sounds like there may something interesting to read here.
Unfortunately its all in person knowledge from living in the area.
Coast Salish Agriculture: permanent exhibit at UBC Botanical Garden. Specifically how they cultivated groves of Garry Oak trees.
Searching Garry Oak or Garry Oak Tree turns up a fair bit of resources to read there.
In general, a bit to read about a non PNW native agriculture is a short excerpt in The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. He talks about what we consider the “natural state” of the island of Manhattan. To paraphrase: If you consider it plains or meadow, that’s not the natural state. That state was one created and managed by native people in the area when European explorers and settlers arrived.
As for their use of the western red cedar. Again, in person. For in person visits and information I would recommend:
• Grouse Mountain maintains a small collection, as well as some respectable Alpine-ish hiking in the summer.
• Sea To Sky Gondola in Squamish, BC: tourist attraction run by the local native band.
• The best would of course be the UBC Museum of Anthropology. Edit: which works with the native groups to display/restore/preserve artifacts. Its not just pilfered stuff.Thanks!
Associating the original sin with sex is how you get people to confess and “donate” at collections, and it way overassumes what actually happened.
The original sin was theft, then lying about said theft, then blaming god for his (Adam’s) own mistakes.
God asked them to baby make before all this. They did not try for baby until after all this went down.
I’ve wondered about this before, but it seems like a coincidence.
As I understand it, serpent type monsters are one of the oldest surviving concepts from ancient myths and stories, and are usually more associated with evil or chaos than sex.
I thought the original sun story was a story about how the evil overlord of the universe forbade humanity from the knowledge of good and evil and a nice snake showed us the path to the truth
As an atheist who has barely read the bible, this explanation makes a thousand times more sense to me than “smart girl gets punished for seeking knowledge also there is a snake who is the devil for some reason, don’t ask questions, it makes perfect sense”
Also knowing that “the devil” is a more modern invention that was barely in the original bible or the new testament, I was always confused why people assume this snake was the devil.
I looked at it as an unintended evolution story, but your take is far better.
Man’s happily swinging through the trees, picking fruit, easy life. Then he gets smart. Now babies have huge heads, causing miserable childbirth. Now man is aware of his mortality, something many animals don’t understand.
Since we’re no longer foraging, we have to farm, toil for our food. And we gotta wear clothes.
Can’t be farming with no clothes on man.
Even them Cahokia dudes wore a little belt thing when they hoeing that maize.
The problem with interpretation is that, if you can make a convincing argument about why something should be seen a specific way, youll have people see it that way. Same thing here. I agree that it’s a possible interpretation, but it also just depends on who you’re talking to. Point being others in the comments with wildly differing views, but with justifications that are equally as valid. Who knows what’s the right interpretation, your guess is as good as anyone’s.
deleted by creator
It isn’t rude to examine religious texts, myths, and traditions from an academic viewpoint, however.
No it isn’t
deleted by creator
Well, how respectful were those religions to people of different religions/believes?
They burned Atheists for fun back in the day.
deleted by creator
I’d agree to disagree, but no. Ridiculous beliefs should be ridiculed. Additionally, no one is making fun of or even making light of religion here.
No it isn’t part of the story of creation.
No it isn’t rude.
I only show respect to respectable beliefs. If someone thinks someone else deserves to die because Sky Daddy says they did a bad thing, I’m making fun of them because they’re a contemptable moron, not a paragon of wisdom.
deleted by creator
The Bible is a religious text for a religion with a history of doing really bad things and many people who are currently leading said religion are still doing really bad things. Idgaf if I’m rude to bad people.
