26 thoughts on “The Fall of Adam and Eve in the Bible and the Quran”

  1. CHILDREN AND ORIGINAL SIN? BY STEVE FINNELL

    Some theologians believe that all men are born with the guilt of Adam's sin. They believe all men are guilty of original sin and therefore are totally depraved at birth. They believe infants need to be forgiven for Adam's sin.

    1. There no mention of original sin in Scripture.
    2. There no Scripture that speaks of baptizing infants to wash away the guilt of Adam's sin.
    3. There is no Biblical reference of any infant nor of any adult being guilty of inherited sin.

    JESUS AND CHILDREN

    Matthew 18:2-3 And Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.(NKJV)

    Was Jesus saying you have to be totally depraved like theses little children to enter the kingdom of heaven?

    Jesus was not baptizing infants and little children for the forgiveness of original sin.

    John the Baptists was baptizing adults for the forgiveness of sins, after they repented. Infants and little children have no sin for which they need to repent. Even adults cannot repent for the sin of Adam and Eve.

    There were no denominational churches baptizing infants and little children while Jesus walked the earth, yet Jesus said become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Original sin inherited from Adam is a doctrine invented by men.

    Men are guilty of the sin they themselves commit.

    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (NKJV)

    Men are sinners because they sin, not because Adam sinned.

    James 2:9-11 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by law as transgressors……(NKJV)

    When men transgress God's law they are guilty of sin. What law do infants break by being born? Infants are not transgressors of God's law. Infants are not sinners nor are they guilty of Adam's transgression.

    1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. (NKJV)

    Sin is committed. Sin is not inherited.

    James 1:14-15 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (NKJV)

    Are infants tempted in their mothers womb and sin before they are born? Of course not. Sin is committed by those capable of understanding right from wrong. Sin is committed by those who understand they are sinning against God.

    John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.(NKJV)

    Jesus did not say children are a slave to sin because they are guilty of original sin.

    Jesus did not say you need to be baptized as infants so original sin can be washed away.

    If men spend eternity in hell it will be because of unrepentant, unforgiven sins they have committed.

    Not one person will go to hell because of the sin Adam committed.

    The doctrine of original sin and the total depravity of man is man-made doctrine.

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

    Like

    Reply

  2. Hello Steve. Welcome to the blog and thank you for your comments. I am unable to write a full response to your article at this time, but I would just like to make a couple of points. You claim that there is nothing in the Bible that mentions original sin. For the most part, you are right. It is certainly a man-made doctrine. But your claim is not entirely correct, for as I mentioned in my article, Paul clearly stated in Romans 5:12 that sin entered the world through Adam:

    “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…”

    This is a very clear reference to original sin. And according to Paul, it is because of original sin that God allegedly came in human form to die for our sins. He also says that if we do not accept God's sacrifice, then we have no chance at attaining salvation because we are still tainted by original sin.

    Like

    Reply

  4. Adam (peace be upon him) was a human being. He was capable of making mistakes, like we all are. It was not a deliberate act of disobedience. A prophet can make mistakes. That doesn't make him any less of a prophet.

    Like

    Reply

  6. see we christain dont need ur approval we know jesus is son of god n thtz enough coz we seen many miracles in churches in jesus name many cancer patients healed n many peoples say tht their problems had solved in jesus name…….v dnt care what quran says abt jesus n bible…..

    Like

    Reply

  7. You are the one who is confused, buddy. As I said, a prophet is still a human being. They can still make mistakes. That is what Adam did. He made a mistake, and he was repentant. Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is merciful. He forgave Adam. Alhamdulillah! All praise is due to Allah!

    Like

    Reply

  8. LOL! The fact that you have not even attempted to respond to the actual article itself (which highlights the holes in the Biblical story), but instead have resorted to hostile comments shows that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. The articles on this blog are written for people with brains. They are written for people who can think critically and discuss rationally. You are incapable of that. I could care less what you believe. You can believe whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. Hindus believe that their “god” has existed in many forms, whether that of a monkey or an elephant. It doesn't mean their beliefs are true.

    Your so-called “miracles in churches” are just tricks by liars to deceive the feeble-minded. You are clearly a feeble-minded person. Ask yourself: if these people really are capable of “healing” cancer patients, then why aren't they in hospitals helping the sick get better? What better way is there to prove that they are bona fide “healers”? If you think about this rationally, you will realize that they are simply frauds who prey on the gullible. See the following 😉

    http://collectivelyconscious.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/you-dont-see-faith-healers-working-in-hospitals-for-the-same-reason-you-dont-see.jpg

    Like

    Reply

  9. i say i dnt care wht u says n quran says abt us…. bcoz earlier i was a “kattar hindu” ……i realize n feel d power of christ..in my lyf n i see many miracles in my lyf .den. i aceeept d christ in my lyf….there r many testimonies people r giving abt jesus not for muhhamad

    Like

    Reply

  11. And I said that I don't care what you believe. You are simple-minded fool who gets impressed by magic tricks. It doesn't surprise me that you don't answer my questions and instead try to change the subject! How funny! You won't answer my questions because you know you don't have an answer. So, like a coward, you try to change topics.

    Answer my question: If your so-called “healers” are performing miracles, then why don't they go to hospitals to “heal” all the sick people?

    Like

    Reply

  12. All of these issues have been dealt with by others in detail. The Prophet's marriage to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was not unusual in 7th century Arabia. In fact, it was unusual anywhere in the world at the time. How old do you think Mary (peace be upon her) was when she married Joseph? The answer might surprise you!

    Regarding the 72 virgins, read the following article:

    http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/12/72-virgins-does-allah-swt-give-sexual.html

    Like

    Reply
    1. arjun

      Greetings in the name Of Our Creator JESUS… dear brother im from INDIA. Here so many muslims believd in christ n accepted as GOD N SAVIOUR. So u plz accpet him. not quran Jesus only Bible Jesus. 09652358956

      Like

      Reply

      1. Jesus is not the Creator. You are committing idolatry just like Hindus. Jesus prayed to God, so he is God’s servant.

        Millions of people worldwide are leaving Christianity. The number of people who leave Islam is very small by contrast.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. John 8:37  I know that ye are *Abraham's seed*; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
    38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
    39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
    40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
    41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
    42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
    43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
    John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    Jesus was talking about Abraham and not Satan vide John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed

    Like

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      the question is an interesting one, if adam had three persons from the trinity to play with and had fellowship with them, what requirement of eve? And why text says god used to pop around if he was always around?

      Like

      Reply

  15. Pingback: Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Allah Had No Son” – The Quran and Bible Blog

  16. Pingback: Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Camel’s in the Tent” – The Quran and Bible Blog

  17. mr.heathcliff

    “The Bible story is all about the presence of God. We see it from Genesis to Revelation. The covenant was about His presence; the Temple was about His presence; Jesus was about His presence; the Holy Spirit is about His presence, as is the Church. And in Revelation 22.3-5, the biggest deal is that God will be forever present.

    The greatest loss for Adam & Eve was not Paradise, it was access to God’s presence.”

    I don’t see much in Genesis 2-3 which suggests that losing God’s presence — or having ever been in his presence to begin with — was an intended theme/claim at all. Really, there are 3 or 4 things that we might take as evidence against this.

    For one, from Genesis 2:8 and other texts, we don’t get the impression that the garden was really God’s “home base.” It didn’t even exist before the creation of Adam: “the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

    Second, if Adam had originally been in God’s presence, and this was presumably sufficient for his happiness and well-being, etc., why does Genesis 2:18 characterize Adam as being “alone” and lacking?

    Genesis 3:8 might also reinforce 2:8, etc., giving the impression that the garden is something that God only visited, not resided in. It quite literally uses the phrase “presence of the Lord God,” too; though also note the anthropomorphism in 3:7. Hermann Gunkel makes reference to an Egyptian story from the Turin papyrus — plates 31-77 or so, on obtaining the secret name of Re — which may be of some relevance here. Also, on Gen. 3:8, even Leon Kass writes that “[t]his is the first explicit mention that any human being really attended to or even noticed the divine presence.”

    Further, the punishments that God ordains are all just standard aspects of life: labor pains and agricultural toil and so on. I don’t see how these have anything to do with God or God’s presence.

    Finally, God’s expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden seems like it was just a practical measure, and had nothing to do with losing the privilege of being in God’s presence. Again, like the other punishments, this was just an etiology to explain why humans aren’t immortal. (Immortality may have been something the gods possess, by their very nature; but it’s the tree that represented the potential for humans attaining/usurping this.)

    Like

    Reply
  18. mr.heathcliff

    “Genesis 1-2 is a temple text”

    Right away, we should be cautious about meshing the two chapters together as “one” text. The chapters are infamously understood to have been at some degree of independence from one another (and indeed in tension) at several points.

    In any case, one of the reasons Genesis 1 is ascribed to the “Priestly” source is precisely because of some of the lexical and conceptual connections with the temple cult, etc. But in terms of standard scholarly analysis, Genesis 2:4 typically marks the beginning of a separate source. Most notably, the seven-day structure doesn’t appear at all here.

    “The terms used in Gn. 2.15 (“work” and “care for”) are priestly terms, not agricultural ones.”

    Whoa, okay, I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but that’s a straight-up misrepresentation. עָבַד and שָׁמַר are both very common verbs in the Hebrew Bible. The latter word is so general that I’ve not sure if we can say anything about it at all, other than it denotes keeping. (That it’s a reference to the priestly cult in particular is probably no more plausible than Gunkel’s suggestion that the mandate of 2:15 was to guard the garden specifically from demonic incursion.)

    Together with the former word, though, Genesis 2:15 almost certainly just suggests maintenance (which, again, is super general) and/or, more specifically, cultivation. The latter is certainly the sense we get from עָבַד’s use in Genesis 2:5; 3:23; 4:2, 12, too; and we find the exact same phrase from Genesis 2:5; 3:23, etc. in 1 Chronicles 27:26 as well.

    “Humanity was not the slave of the gods (as in other contemporaneous cultures), but instead in the Bible priests and priestesses, to engage with God in relationship, to manage sacred space, and to do what was necessary to maintain God’s presence among the people”

    It shouldn’t escape notice that עָבַד in Gen. 2:15 is literally the verb for “serve” or to be a slave. Now, the exact background of Adam maintaining God’s garden is unclear. It’s worth noting, though, that in some of the closest ancient Near Eastern parallels to this, the creation of humans is not just for temple service, but for a broader development of culture, and indeed agriculture. If Genesis 2:15 is a kind of de-mythologized version of this, it’s de-mythologized it so much that it’s hard to tell what exactly the purpose of this was at all. But I still think that, going by what we have, it’s very hard to say that this maintenance was even intended to be in service to God at all.

    To add to that, the perspective of Genesis 2-3 itself is that Adam and Eve are clearly alone in the garden, so they can’t at this juncture “maintain God’s presence among the people” or anything like that.

    To sum up, it’s probably safest to say that the mandate in Gen. 2:15 wasn’t for any particular greater purpose at all. If anything, the impetus behind this tradition was probably just naively literal: that if humans were going to live in a garden, they’d probably need to do some upkeep. It may simply preempt the idea — having already been hinted at in Gen. 2:5, and to be developed in 3:19 and 3:23 — that agriculture is a standard part of human existence; though it may also suggest easier labor, which was soon to become more difficult. (See also Genesis 4:2, 12 here. In terms of major commentators, Hamilton and [mostly] Westermann don’t really draw any broader conclusions from Genesis 2:15, either.)

    So to sum up what you said in response to what I wrote about Genesis 2:8, at some point it seems you agree that God doesn’t reside primarily in the garden proper, but rather that the garden is adjacent to God’s real home/sanctuary, in Eden. But at other points you seemed to suggest that the garden is the locus of God’s presence, though.

    Honestly, you still seem to be so wrapped up in seeing the narrative through a lens of (quite specific) symbolism that you’re actually failing to read the narrative as it is — missing the trees for the forest in a sense. But we should always make sure the finer details of narratives help us construct and confirm the larger contextual lens through which we might see the narrative, before just insisting that it simply must be seen through such a lens, details be damned.

    As for specifics in your response about Genesis 2:8:

    I’m open to — though not sold on — the idea that God might have been thought to live in Eden somehow; though I’m still not sold on his presence being concentrated in the garden. Again, as I suggested, I’m more inclined toward the view that God “visits” the garden, so to speak. More on that later; but for now, here are a few major commentators on Genesis 2:8:

    Westermann writes

    The garden God planted to provide for his people has nothing to do with a garden of God (or of the gods) or with what is popularly called paradise. As Vriezen has remarked there can be no question of a garden of God because this garden was planted by God only after the creation of human beings and is meant for them alone.

    Hamilton notes the presence at various places in the Hebrew Bible of the phrases/concepts of the “garden of Yahweh” (Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3) and “garden of God” (Ezek. 28:13; 31:9); but he also suggests

    The writer of Gen. 2 does not use any such phrase, perhaps to refrain from giving the impression that this garden is where God lives. He is its planter, but not its occupant.

    Finally, Gunkel proposes that a pre-written stage, oases — “outward-sprouting wildernesses in the midst of infertile land” — were believed by Israelites to be areas where the spirit of God lived, but that “[b]ecause of an aversion to the mythological, this concept is no longer explicitly stated in [Genesis] 2, but it is still assumed in 3:8, where God strolls in the garden.”

    Adam is placed in the garden which God plants; but nothing in Genesis 2 indicates that this was done specifically so that he could be “brought into God’s presence” or anything.

    And on that note, interestingly, in his essay “The Story Of Paradise In The Light Of Mesopotamian Culture And Literature,” A. Van Der Kooij takes a closer look at the neglected detail (Gen. 2:8, 15) of God’s taking Adam and placing him in the Garden — “in the east” — within its broader ANE context. He compares this to the translation of Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh, Ziusudra in Sumerian sources, and even makes the connection to the Greek blessed/fortunate isles. But one thing to note here is that it’s not at all clear that these privileged persons were brought (in)to the home/presence of the gods. Rather, these were special locations for humans to reside on their own.

    (Also interestingly, with reference to Stordalen’s Echoes of Eden and Dietrich’s “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarte,” Van Der Kooij discusses three different types of gardens that were potentially the closest background for the garden of Eden: royal gardens, cultic/Temple gardens, and “mythic” gardens, like the Jewel Garden in Gilgamesh.)

    I’m already running out of space, so to cut it short, I think many scholars would agree that there’s little evidence — and in fact some negative evidence — to suggest that “[t]he garden next to Eden was not where humans lived, but . . . the place of reception of the humans into fellowship with God in God’s own dwelling place,” as you said. Certainly the existence of (horti)culture and the motif of nourishment suggests a longer stay for Adam and Eve in the garden.

    I won’t really say anything about Genesis 2:18, for one because I didn’t put a whole lot of weight on that particular objection to begin with, but also because I don’t think your response really contributed to your larger argument either. Again though, in Gen. 2:18ff., it looks like Adam was simply being prepared for mundane aspects of human life here, and not for entry into God’s presence or anything like that.

    As for 3:8,

    “This is an anthropomorphism. God doesn’t actually (physically) WALK anywhere.”

    was a strange response — to an argument I didn’t make. Not only did I myself mention the “anthropomorphism in 3:7” (I meant 3:8), but my argument here was over whether God resided in the garden permanently or (visited) occasionally, not about whether God was corporeal or not.

    I agree that the “wind/breeze of the day” is a bit unusual — although not as much as some make it out to be — though this still seems to suggest that God had a particular time of day when he’d stroll through the garden. This may not only be similar to, say, a king simply visiting a garden adjoining the palace, but could also suggest that (being in) God’s presence wasn’t really as profound as it may seem.

    As for

    “The expulsion from the Garden, however, does have everything to do with God’s presence. The Fall is defined by the fact that Adam and Eve acquired wisdom illegitimately and tried to take God’s role for themselves rather than eventually joining God in his role as they were taught wisdom…”

    , I’m very quickly running out of space, so I’ll try to respond as succinctly as possible.

    Adam and Eve’s acquisition of wisdom wasn’t some usurping of or assault on divine prerogatives, but again just rote etiology — here portrayed as a kind of underdog acquisition; but again, etiologically, an acquisition of what humans have always had (which also diminishes the ethical coloring of its “sinfulness,” etc.). It’s undeniably parallel to the Babel narrative in this regard, as I’ve discussed at length here.

    Like

    Reply
  19. mr.heathcliff

    I think the evidence suggests that in both Gen. 3 and 11, God is somewhat of the antagonist, or at best a sort inscrutable figure — one always at a distance from humans, despite their creation in his image (whatever that was supposed to mean exactly). In this regard, then, it’s counter-intuitive that in Gen. 3, this was all about the “reception of the humans into fellowship with God” or anything.

    I think you’re overlooking how much the last verses of Genesis 3 are exclusively about immortality — and also what they imply about Adam and Eve’s acquisition of knowledge. It’s not that God felt that Adam and Eve had forfeited their right to the divine presence. It’s that, having already become semi-godlike in attaining knowledge, they were now dangerously close to becoming even more godlike in their acquisition of immortality. Again, like in Genesis 11, the threat was more practical than ethical.

    But from the perspective of an ancient Israelite who had it in mind to craft a narrative like Genesis 2-3, there had always been a divide between human nature and divine nature, from the dawn of time. So the ultimate outcome of Genesis 2-3 was already decided in advance, before they even set pen to papyrus at all: humans were wise like the gods, but (unlike the gods) mortal.

    Consequently, how exactly the Genesis narrative arrived at this state of affairs was ultimately arbitrary. But it was a state of affairs that was never intended to be reversed; thus “he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life” — not to prohibit them from “the resting place for the deity’s invisible presence.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ tony

      It is an interesting premise, the who “fall of man” in the Biblical text really doesn’t have anything to do with being “out of God’s presence” so I would have to research it more but some good points raised. Also, man the Jews made up a lot of crap.

      Like

      Reply
  21. mr.heathcliff

    if john was jew , how come he did not understand the literary stuff in his own language?

    quote:
    A common translation of Psalm 22:18 reads “they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots” (ESV). But actually, contrary to what the conjunction “and” may imply in this, it’s not really describing two different actions at all here. Instead, these two things are in fact one and the same, simply repeated poetically. We can see this reflected in many English translations, which remove the conjunction:

    “They divide my clothes among themselves, casting lots for my garments” (NJPS)

    [“dividing my clothes” and “casting lots” is the same thing, the same action “dividing my clothes” is being repeated as “casting lots”]

    ; “They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments” (NET); “They divide my clothing among themselves; they cast lots for my clothing!” (ISV).
    Some translations are even more unambiguous about this, collapsing the two clauses into one: “They gamble for my clothes and divide them among themselves” (GNT); “They took my clothes and gambled for them” (CEV).
    Also worth noting, though, is that in the original Hebrew of Psalm 22:18, the first word “my garments” is plural (בְגָדַי), while the parallel word to this in the second part is actually singular לְבוּשׁ — which is either a kind of collective singular “clothing,” or sometimes a true singular “tunic” or “robe.” This is reflected in the Septuagint, too, using plural (τὰ) ἱμάτια and then singular ἱματισμός.
    Again, I mention all of this because of what the gospel of John has here in its unique version of the crucifixion narrative:
    23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments [τὰ ἱμάτια] — dividing [actually just ἐποίησαν] them into four parts, one for each soldier — and the tunic [χιτών]. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. 24 So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it.” This was to fulfill what the scripture says, “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing/tunic/robe they cast lots.” (John 19:23-24)
    Instead of understanding just one single act of his garments being divided up by casting lots, then, it actually takes Psalm 22:18 hyper-literally, (mis)interpreting it such that there were two acts: quite literally dividing his garments evenly (“into four parts”), but then casting lots for a singular tunic.

    Like

    Reply
  22. mr.heathcliff

    if adam and eve were meant to live with yhwh forever as the crosstians say, what was the purpose of the magic tree which gives eternal life?

    it makes sense if they weren’t meant to live for ever and were barred from eating from it.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment