You have found the weak point in all the religions. OK, god made the world, but who made god?

It's been a long time since I've done any reading in this area, but my understanding of why the apple is assumed to be the forbidden fruit of Genesis is based on the battle for supremacy fought by the Roman Church against it's Irish couterpart. (Although to say it was 'fought' is moot, as it was all a bit one sided).
Circa 12 Century, people were tiring of the Roman Church's more secular pursuits of wealth and status. Many educated people in Europe were looking towards the west and the altogether more "down to earth" lives of the Church as represented by Celtic priests. They led simple lives; did not practice celibacy (the sees was often passed from father to son); were subject to secular laws and practiced their religion as well as fulfilling regular roles within their community; many were farmers or even soldiers. Most importantly they did not tithe their parishoners and relied solely on gifts (I can't imagine this loss of potential revenue pleased Rome!). This was in direct contrast to the Pope on his throne and in all his pomp and finery, with cardinals, arch bishops, private armies etc. all of which necessitated high taxation and a rigid pyrimidical hierachy.
What's this got to do with the apple? Well, most people in North-Western Europe will know that it is probably the most commonly available fruit. In pagan religions it often symbolised fertility, linking it with sex and therefore, in the eyes of the Roman Church, with sin. It was a useful tool to hammer the opposition because the apple grew where the Celtic Church was strong. So by placing the apple at the centre of original sin, the Pope could undermine his rival's powerbase.
To be fair though, the Celtic Church's strength was also it's weakness. Because it was so close to the people, the Celtic church didn't really have a structure that allowed it maintain consensus and control its constituents, and as a result many of the elements of pre-Christian religions had resurfaced and were being combined with the Bible's teachings - whether this would be a positive or negative thing I'll leave for you to decide.

Here's a message from Liz -

-------------

I would like to start with some of the comments about the dead sea scrolls. I have a copy of the book. There are many manuscripts of bible, both old and new testament. Prior to the dead sea scrolls, some of the oldest manuscripts date back to the 4th century. Most of the new testament was written late in the first century. At that time the only way to get a copy of anything was to have a scribe copy it. Unfortunately, many errors would creep in. Sometimes what the scribe read, or was writing down from someone giving dictation, did not conform to the religious beliefs of the particular individual. Many times the newly scribed copy was changed from the original words. The belief in some cases was that someone else must have changed it to something obviously wrong, and now they are changing it back. In addition, regular human error would lead to errors. Having one letter off changes the entire word and the entire meaning of the scriptures. There are tons of manuscripts around of different ages and the question has always been which ones are the correct ones. Age is not necessarily a determining factor. There are bible scholars who devote their lives to comparing manuscripts (denoted mss). They compare them and look for differences and carefully document those differences. Nestle-Aland for example is a well known modern day mss which is the result of careful textual criticism of the ancient works from around the world.

I do not have any of my research materials right in front of me right now. They are all thrown in a pile where I cannot get to them because we are still doing the floors, so I am speaking out of my memory right now....

Sometime around the 4th century, a Christian priest was upset about the number of writings and their sources. Several people wrote and submitted to the church. There were tons of writings around and they were not necessarily the product of "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit". Sometimes they were historians, sometimes apostles, sometimes crazy fanatics. This priest created the first canon of the bible. He selected the books or writings that would be included in the bible as well as those that would be excluded. He also determined the order. Bibles today are based on the decisions that this priest made.

The original bible works contained the "Book of the Law" and the "Book of the Prophets" for the old testament and the new covenant for the new testament. The book of the law is the Torah. Jesus Christ refers to these 2 books in all 4 gospels when he says "... on this hangs all the law and the prophets". He was referring to the old testament as it stood at his time.

Somewhere around the middle of the 16th century the first bibles were printed. A Swiss gentleman decided that bible would be a best seller and went to the Swiss museums to examine the MSS that they had. They only had 6 or 7. They were incomplete. Where they were incomplete, this Swiss man simply filled in the missing pieces with his own fabrications. Where they contradicted, he made a decision about what to include and exclude. This document is known today as the Textus Receptus. It is the basis for many of the English translation bibles available today.

What this Swiss gentleman did really upset tons of people that take the writings of the Word of God as sacred. This launched a new field called "Textual Criticism". These people were involved in carefully examining all manuscripts from around the world with the intent of producing the most accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts possible. They approach the matter both from a scientific and a scholarly focus. Nestle - Aland is in this category.

You may be wondering what the point of all of that is. The point is manifold. The dead sea scrolls might be old, but that does not automatically make them accurate. They might also be the reflection of a particular cult. In addition, you always have to be really careful about a translation, who did it, and what decisions they made. From what I understood at the time the printed copy of the dead sea scrolls was released, that only 1 or even a few of the people had actually seen the original writings and they took it upon themselves to make a translation. The qualifications of the translator and what choices they made throughout the translation are exceedingly important. It would take several pages to explain why you cannot trust many of the translations of the bible readily available today. It is not that they are grossly inaccurate, it is that they are grossly inaccurate where it matters the most. I have a critical text on the King James version of the bible which points out over 4,000 translation errors from the mss it came from, in addition to really messing up over 250 figures of speech that are used in over 5,522 places. That is a lot of errors. Its a shame, because it is the most commonly used Christian bible today.

With respect to the tree of eternal life, if they had eaten of that one, after falling into sin, they would have permanently sealed their fate in the state they were in. Redemption of man would have been impossible. This is why they were driven out of the garden and the tree was guarded. Adam and Eve never would have born a child while they were living in the Garden of Eden (also known as paradise). They were banished from the garden and started to bear children because they thought they were going to give rise the messiah to redeem them for their sin. They had no way of knowing it would take thousands of years. There was likely a very significant period of time between Eve's creation and her falling into temptation. The bible does not say how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden before the fall happened. It could have been hundreds or hundreds of thousands of years. It simply describes the garden, their position in it, and what happened. However, one *might* be able to imply that this temptation took place over a very long period of time. Later on, I will show you what the hints are on that matter in the bible.

I would be careful about saying that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a fig and the tree of life a pomegranate. From the point of view of a literalist, if it does not say that, then it is inaccurate to add it. I will show you how this was Eve's sin and what led her into temptation in the first place. I will do that in a separate email as it is quite long. At the same time, I will address the rest of the comments I read on that page, because they are all related. Those trees could have been exactly as stated. They would be trees that are unknown on the planet today, or anywhere outside of the Garden of Eden at that time. If it was a pomegranate for example, there would have been nothing from stopping them from eating that fruit once they were driven from the garden. This would have sealed their fate just the same, in the garden or without.

Adam was not cajoled. I will explain that in the same email that explains what Eve did...

Another message from Liz -

--------------------------

I must say before I go any further, that I am working only from my bible (which is a Darby) and my memory. I usually do not embark on discussions without doing proper biblical research. I guess anything that I say here is subject to change when I do the real in depth research. For now, however, I can share quite a bit of information about Eve's temptation and how Adam was not coerced in any way.

I have not studied this topic in the bible in any great detail. I can already see that an in depth study would be justified. I haven't time to do this now, maybe in Jan. after I do the multi-language support for my other projects.

Anyway: Genesis 2:16,17 "And Jehovah Elohim took Man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to till it and to guard it. And Jehovah Elohim commanded Man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou shalt 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 of it thou shalt certainly die."

"Man" is the Hebrew word for "race". The word "eat" is a Hebrew idiom. Literally it means "eating you shall eat". This idiom repeats in the verse with "dying thou shalt die". This sort of repetition is a figure of speech commonly used in the Bible and is an example of the types of things that get lost with an English translation. Eve did not exist at the time that God gave this command.

God has many names. The name "Elohim" refers to God as the creator of Heaven, Earth and all in it. Adam's relationship to God was as one of his creatures. "Jehovah" is a name for God in covenant relation to his creation. It means "the eternal" or He who was, Is and Is to come, and the immutable one. The use of this word shows Adam and God had a covenant relationship.

The devil tempts Eve. In Genesis 3:1. He starts off sort of questioning the word of God. " .."Is it even so, that God has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

This is the first time the devil speaks in the bible. It is his sphere of activity to oppose God's word. This is how the devil is introduced to the reader. The phrase "that God has said" is actually another figure of speech. Sparing the details, let it suffice to say that this is equivalent to "can it be that God has said...". this is not a question, rather a statement of opposition.

Now watch how Eve responds to this, in Genesis 3:2 she says "We may eat of the fruit ..." and in 3:3 "...God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, and ye shall not touch it, lest ye die".

When God gave the command in 2:16, for the word "eat" he used a figure of speech meaning "eating you shall eat" or perhaps rightly translated "freely eat". In Genesis 3:2, when Eve uses the word "eat" she does not repeat what God said, rather she changes it to "may eat". If you see the distinction, one says "freely eat" and the other says "may eat", as if to say they are "allowed" instead of "freely". Use of the word "freely" or the figure of speech indicates that what God said was really important. Important enough to emphasize it with a figure of speech. Eve changes this important fact.

Eve says "ye shall not touch it". God never said they could not touch it. She added that.

"lest ye die". The word "lest" means more along the lines of "might" rather than "surely". As a matter of fact, this was so important that when God gave these commands to Adam, he used a figure of speech "dying thou shalt die", which might be appropriately translated "surely". The fact is that it had a lot of emphasis associated with it when the command was first given to show the importance of that particular aspect of it. Again, those particular points that God emphasizes as important, are the ones that end up ultimately getting modified.

Then the devil responds with: Genesis 3:5: "Ye will not certainly die, but..."

This is the second time the devil speaks and his words are in direct contradiction to God's.

The devil further explains in 3:5: "You will be as God" (Elohim). This is a foundation for the devil's lie to man in general, trying to convince man about his own immanence. Also keep in mind that Lucifer thought he was like God and that was the basis for his mutiny in heaven.

There are many lessons to be learned from these few verses of scripture. There is a definite pattern and this pattern repeats nearly every day in all of our lives. The idea behind the story is to point the pattern out so that man is aware of it and does not repeat Eve's mistake. Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it is obvious.

Add a word, change a word, delete a word, you no longer have the word. This forms the basis of hundreds of denominations today, all of which claim to be teaching and preaching from the same material.

The devil gets people to question the word of God first. This is manifested in people that begin to question their own standards of truth, personal integrity, morals, ethics, values and religious beliefs. It is also manifested in those who attempt to push their own self righteousness on others, in the form of pushing their own morals and trying to make them into social law. This comes straight from the devil many times.

Then there is lust, which comes in a variety of forms, including social acceptance. The gain of power, money, fame or other forms of material gain are usually involved. Belittling the consequences and the sinful caliber of the act are also key players in this repetitive scenario. Even if a person knows the truth or was taught the truth, that truth can be degraded until there is a good balance between the truth and the lust. Notice that in Genesis 3:6 "... The woman saw that the tree was good for food and that ...". This is the lust, along with "You will be as God"

The devil convinced Eve to think about God's command completely differently, just like an activist. At that point, after one convinces themselves the consequences are not that severe, or that there are no consequences at all, or even that it is the right thing to do, or there is much to gain and nothing to loose, they go ahead and sin. Perhaps at that time, they believe it is sort of a "minor" sin. Perhaps they did it for a good reason or because they convince themselves it is not a sin because everyone else does it. Perhaps the "activist" has them so confused from perpetually working on them, that they have lost sight of the truth and the consequences, just as Eve did. Eve was beguiled, but many people will sin just for the lustful gain alone.

What Eve did is renege on truthful words by modifying them, and her own morals, values, ethics and personal integrity. She lost sight of the importance of God, his position and his relationship to her. She listened to the activist and began to conform to his adulteration of what God said. She eventually lost sight of the truth and the consequences and "followed the crowd" instead. Finally in the end, the statements that come out of this devilish scenario are in direct contradiction to what God said -'you won't die'. Eve was convinced she wouldn't.

If you look at the bible, there is exactly one word for "sin", it is "sin". It does not matter if the sin is premeditated murder or a white lie, they are both "sin". People might have themselves convinced that a "minor" sin results in minor consequences according to spiritual law. They do not understand that there is no distinction and the consequences are the same. A "sin" is a falling short before God and usually it is not done out of ignorance, it is done by choice. God makes the distinction in the bible and states that if a man sins out of ignorance, he is not responsible. Eve did not sin out of ignorance, she was tempted. That temptation must have taken place over a long period of time and it must have been very subtle, as we are introduced to the serpent with the knowledge that he is the most subtle beast of the field.

According to the bible, there are 2 gods. Every minute of every day, every person makes a choice about which god they are following. They make this openly manifest in what they say and what they do, and hidden in what they think. You can tell from what people say and what people do, what god they worship. The 2 gods are God, the creator of heaven and Earth or the devil. That is not to say that it is appropriate to peg people one way or another. That is completely inappropriate because any person, at any time, may repent (lit. change your mind) and change their ways. They do not generally make a public announcement on this matter. What people do is try to convince themselves it is not so black and white - lots of gray areas. That is not true according to the bible.

Now let's look at Adam: Genesis 3:6:"...and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate."

He was standing right there. He was not tempted like Eve. He had 2 gods that he could worship. He acknowledged Elohim as the creator of all things, a supreme being and he made a commitment to him with respect to his covenant relationship to him. What Adam did was equivalent to quitting his job one day, giving God the finger and going to work for the devil instead. He made a conscious choice to go against what God told him to do, his master. In Genesis 3:12 Adam openly admits that Eve gave him the fruit and he did eat it. Adam does try to impart some of the blame on God, when he states: "whom thou hast given [to be] with me.." In other words, Adam is trying to say it is actually God's fault for giving him the woman.

In Genesis 3:17 God says "thou has harkened to the voice of thy wife...". Adam made a choice to listen to God or to listen to man. In making that choice, he forsook his covenant relationship with God and chose to work for the devil instead.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has some meaning. If Adam was "good" and committed to God and doing God's will, he would have been obedient to God's command. His obedience to God's command would have proven that he was good. Instead he revealed the fact that he was evil. He did not sin out of ignorance. He knew that both good and evil existed and he knew the knowledge of them also existed. He did not need to have any in depth knowledge of what good was, what evil was, or how to discern them with any sort of intelligence. All he had to do was be obedient to God's simple command, and prove his commitment to God. He chose not to.

My goodness me - what a lot to take in, let alone comment on, but I feel I have to try.

The thing with the Bible is that words have been added, changed, translated over and over - even before people first recorded the words in written form. I doubt that we can really know what the original was.

Anyway what about 'Jehovah Elohim' ?

From the King James Bible online: [http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp]
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, ... "

From the Revised Standard Version online:[http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp]
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, ..."

From The World English Bible: Messianic Edition (WEB:ME) also known as The Hebrew Names Version (HNV)online [http://www.ebible.org/bible/hnv/]
2:15 The LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man ... '

So, was it 'The Lord God' or 'Jehovah Elohim'? Does it matter?

There is some debate as to the origins of the word' Elohim' and this subject is discussed here: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/elohim.html

Here are some quotes from: 'The Elohim'

"For the ancient Hebrews "divinities (elohim) dwelt in nature and in the sky. Different tribes each had particular deities who were especially concerned with their affairs."

"Not all scholars accept the plural nature of the Elohim.

"Biblical Hebrew occasionally employs something scholars call the 'majestic plural'. In effect it is a plural ending added to a deity's name to confer status or majesty. In the Old Testament the best example is Elohim which does not mean 'the gods' but is rather the god El with the majestic plural im appended." - David M. Rohl, A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History (1993), p. 228"

What if 'Elohim' actually meant 'The Gods'? It would certainly alter one's perception of the Bible!

[Ninian Smart, by the way, was born in 1927 & was Professor of Theology and of Religion at the Universities of Birmingham and Lancaster]

I feel that I lack the information I require to fully respond to this. I always like to know 'where the author is coming from'. The way this piece is written, it sounds as if a series of facts is being presented. Is that how it is meant to be read?

Personally. I think it is very healthy to question one's own stance on matters.

It does not matter if the sin is premeditated murder or a white lie I think people just need to read that again and consider whether it can possibly be true.

Two Gods? That is unexpected. (Maybe it explains the word 'Elohim'.)

........................

I recently watched a relevant TV programme called: 'Who Wrote the Bible?' presented by Dr Robert Beckford, Director of the Centre for Black Theology, University of Birmingham.

I enjoyed it very much. Some people have said that a lot of the facts would already be known to theologians, but then, theologians probably weren't the intended audience. There is a website about it, which is worth a look:
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/bible.html

Here's a quote:
'The answer to 'Who wrote the Bible?' turns out to be complex .....

'Take the Five Books of Moses, which open the Bible and include the world-famous stories of the creation, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood. Known in Hebrew, the language they were written in, as the Torah, these books contain the foundations of Judaism and Christianity. It turns out that the Books of Moses weren't written by Moses at all, but by four anonymous writers, each with his own particular view to promote. These writings were only brought together when an Israelite king found them useful to promote his political agenda, many centuries after the time of Moses. Says Beckford: 'King Hezekiah turned the Bible into a party political manifesto for monotheism. He definitely knew something about spin.'

'Their agendas are showing'

seeing this from a psychological viewpoint, an apple represents beauty, chasity, etc., ecerything a woman should be. think of snow white, and the queen. she gave snow white a poisoned apple, to try to take away her beauty, being that snow white was the "fairest of the all" and thats what the queen wanted to become: everything snow white was, but couldnt be. i know that science and religion dont mix, but it makes sense: everything God made was beautiful; trees, land, creatures. satan was jelous and wanred to take that away from God, so why not give eve an apple (assuming of course it WAS an apple) to take away the beauty, and everything that goes with it God gave to her?

Yikes, I suppose being female I sort of cringe at the thought that women are supposed to be chaste and beautiful. That seems to be a very male-oriented desire. I think most women I know would rather be honest and wise and not necessarily chaste It is sort of sad that even in modern times we have this idea that beauty is important in a person male OR female, that 'ugly witch' is bad while 'beautiful young girl' is good.

I know a woman in her 70s who is super sweet, but naturally looks "old". I've seen photos of her as a teenager and she was stunningly beautiful. She's talked with me and says it really hurts her to see how people have changed their reaction to her as she's aged. When she was young, people would be thrilled when she went over to talk to them. She was (is) very warm, friendly and sweet. But now that she's older, when she does the exact same thing, go over to warmly talk to a newcomer, she gets more of a "who IS this old crone??" kind of reaction. She is the exact same person, the exact same caring, kind, warm hearted, but people see that outer shell she is living in and react based on it.

lisa, by no means do i think that way about women. id be the first to say "the hell with what you think, if you dont like me for me the get out of my way". as i said, the apple represents beauty etc., and society today tells us that the norm for women is to be beautiful, smart, and strong. it was not always so in the beginning of time. women were to be seen and not heard. they were not to have an opinion, but merly to be a trophy for the one that "owned" her to be displayed. some men still think that way, and thats sad, but i dont. as i said i was looking at it thru a psychological viewpoint, being that i am a forensic psychology major. i always try to find the hidden meanings in things, even where there may not be one. how ironic for me to say that when thats what we ALL are trying to do on this site! =0)

I suppose it's interesting, to me an apple doesn't represent beauty. It represents health

I don't think actually that society says a woman should be smart or strong They say a woman should be beautiful and docile. In fact my paper just ran an article saying that current movies seem to promote guys going for the servant or maid, and that studies show that guys are far more happy dating an underling than dating a boss. The higher the IQ of a guy, the more likely he is to find a good partner - but the higher the IQ of a woman, the LESS likely she is to find a good partner. The women in the study were happy with guys of both higher and lower salary levels ... but the guys by majority wanted women who were quiet, less smart and earned less money.

In fact some guys in the study felt that if a woman earned too much or was too smart, she'd be likely to cheat and leave again. That the only way to ensure the woman stayed 'under control' was if she was dependent on him.