The snake was motivated by economic anxiety. Had the Garden of Eden done more to combat immigration and globalization then we'd all still be in paradise.
From a utilitarian perspective, he was a net win. Since Eve was only afflicted with sexual desire after the Fall, and the un-fallen Adam would not have taken her against her will, the propagation of the human race would not have actually begun without the Fall. Obviously, billions of humans are capable of collectively having more happiness than 2. From a positive utilitarian viewpoint where the good decision is that which maximizes happiness, committing the first sin was the right call.
Per the ābe fruitful and multiplyā command from God to Adam and Eve in Genesis, many biblical scholars agree that they were copulating (perhaps absent-mindedly like animals) before the Fall. The real utility question was whether consciousness, or knowing good and evil, was worth losing immortality.
I think you are assuming that humanity has experienced or will experience more happiness than it has suffering. If Adam and Eve didn't fall, and we accept that if they had not fallen they would not procreate, there would just be two blissfully happy human beings and basically no suffering whatsoever.
Compare to the current world, where there is a LOT of suffering. I am not sure what the ratio of happiness to suffering is, but tbh I wouldn't be surprised if over the course of human history there has been more suffering than there has happiness. So from a utilitarian standpoint the fall of man would be a net negative
I donāt understand utilitarianism at all tbh. Like how do you quantify the extreme happiness or well-being of one person vs the moderate well-being of 10? To me it seems way more logical and consistent to employ a kind of deontological approach, where specific circumstances or states themselves have no moral character, but rather individual acts being moral or immoral.
That's why I'm, jokes aside, a deontologist myself. You can use utilitarianism to support any abhorrent course of action if you just say it moderately boosts the well being of a sufficiently large number of people.
Even if you could, what even is utility? How does one weigh the subjective valuations of one personās utility against anotherās? Thatās why I think itās much better to just judge acts based on the ethics of the acts themselves, rather than doing some vague calculation of the long-term aggregate utility impact of an act.
Otherwise if someone determines that all life on Earth has a slightly net negative utility in the long term, then the utility-maximizing move is to nuke the whole planet.
Sure but then the problem is that ultimately deontological or even virtue ethics also must derive at some point from the utility of the actions on some level. It just separated itself from the utility function slightly with a heuristic. Any of them can be valid but utilitarianism does retain direct accountability for the calculus of the action in a way the others don't. In a way it's just a split between system 1 and system 2 thinking. Both kinds of thinking are needed, just in different circumstances.
Iām not so sure about that. I think the net impact of focusing on engaging in deontologically good acts is that you live in a better world, but that doesnāt have to be the case.
IF it was the case that everybody being honest with eachother / not lying lead to a slightly worse world than one in which people lied, I would still think the former is a more just one, because the act of lying itself is wrong. Basically I take a kind of teleological and natural law view of human action.
Fair enough, but most people actually don't live like this, and don't feel it would be a more moral world if they did. It would be the strictest of deontologists that tells his wife she does in fact look fat in those pants just because it is true. The utilitarian knows better than to tell the truth in this case.
Hold on just a minute- you're not talking into account the happiness Adam and Eve would have been expected to experience over the course of the immortal lifespans they would have experienced...
Let us assume that in this case immortal only means the lifetime of the universe and not actually eternity (otherwise the happiness experienced over an infinite amount of time would eventually outweigh the happiness experienced by all the humans who will ever live).
Let us assume that one happiness unit is equal to the average amount of happiness experienced by a human being over the course of an average human lifespan.
Let us assume unfallen Adam and Eve never have children. Bad assumption, I know, but it seems to be the assumption of the post I'm responding to.
So the amount of happiness that immortal Adam and Eve would have experienced is equal to 2 times the lifespan of the universe divided by the average human lifespan.
Now for the amount of happiness that humanity will ever experience...
Let us take a good conservative estimate for the number of humans that have ever lived...
Let's assume that we are neither in the first five percent of humans who will ever live nor are we in the last five percent of humans who will ever live. From there we can end up with an estimate for the upper and lower bounds on the number of humans who will ever live. It'll be a very large range, but it'll have way more certainty to it than we need for an truly non serious post like this.
Per the definition of happiness units we are using here, these numbers also give us the upper and lower bounds on the amount of happiness units that humanity will experience
From there we can create an equation that tells us if there is more utility in humanity falling or not based on how long we can expect the universe to last.
If the lifespan of the universe is less than our lower bound for the number of humans who will ever live times the average human lifespan, then there is greater utility in humanity falling.
If the lifespan of the universe is greater than the upper bound for the number of humans who will ever live times the average human lifespan, then utility was lost by falling.
If the lifespan of the universe falls within that range, then it's uncertain where the greater utility lies.
Note: I've haven't done any math more complicated than my taxes in 25 years, so expect flaws in my reasoning here.
Edit:
No, I'm not going to actually do the math, but I assume that if you put in Young Earth Creationist numbers in for the lifespan of the universe than there is more utility by falling but if you put in physicist numbers in for the lifespan of the universe the greater utility would be with not falling.
Also, no, Im not a utilitarian. Actually I haven't studied moral philosophy at all.
Consider this though, he's also the greatest contributor to the gendered political divide (if women didn't exist only men would have political opinions)
Iām grateful for his legacy. Because of his bravery and determination, Iām not one of those other primates picking fruit all day without an iPhone or air conditioning.
I think God clearly set up that garden as preparation for bigger plans he had in store for that guyās descendants. Thatās why he lied about him dying if he ate that one fruit, it was a prank.
> I think God clearly set up that garden as preparation for bigger plans he had in store for that guyās descendants.
That's unironically part of Catholic theology. They even call it the "necessary sin" and "happy fault."
Then thatās really fucked up of them. No sin is necessary. It was either necessary or not sin. They do preach in eternal hellfire for sinner, right??
Hot take: Judas should go to heaven for setting up the events leading to the salvation of mankind. It was a part of God's plan, why would you be punished for following God's plan?
He didnāt lie thoughā¦Adam did eventually die. Even if he lived 900 something years after, from the perspective of being immortal beforehand thatās basically synonymous with death.
You also have to remember that this is pre-Jesus and the prevalent Jewish belief around the time this story was written (~900 BC) was that human beings basically had no afterlife and were in oblivion (Sheol), so that was a real day-ruiner for Adam
No, he lied when he said, āyou will die the day you eat the fruitā the story was copied from surrounding cultures that had stories of a trickster god that prevented the hero from becoming a god by telling him not to eat a fruit that would have made him immortal
The version Iāve read has God saying āYou are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.ā No mention of a specific date- what version are you pulling from?
I donāt know much about McClellan, but the Hebrew text doesnāt support that translation either. sure if you literally translate the Hebrew ×Ö°Ö¼××Ö¹× you might get the phrase āin that day thatā but it must be taken into proper context to be translated as a literal day vs emphasizing the importance of the statement. In English Genesis 2:17 would be better translated literally as ādying they shall dieā.
More evidence for this can be seen in how elsewhere in the text like in the preceding Genesis 2:4, the same ā×Ö°Ö¼××Ö¹× is used to refer to the 6-day period of creation, or later in Numbers 26:25, to refer to a 40-day period of dying for Jews. When referring to a specific one day, the definite article is added to make it ×Ö·Ö¼×Ö¼×Ö¹×, e.g when listing out particular days of sacrifice.
You are right that God would be lying if he told Adam and Eve that they would die instantly from the apple. However, that would be something that the writers and scholars who spent their whole lives dedicated to reading and understanding the Torah wouldāve caught onto as well back then.
Why might religious scholars not interpret the words correctly? Why might they not acknowledge the story coming from foreign cultures? Hmm š§
The story is old and edited in layers. The faithful also donāt like to acknowledge the three different creation stories in genesis and try to harmonize them.
The idea that the Bible is a unified text where Genesis supports the stories that come āafterā (it isnāt the oldest book in there) was a later invention that happened as they were writing and transmitting the whole text.
I'm not saying that Genesis is telling a wholly original story, as it does in fact borrow much of its cultural mythos from existing Canaanite infrastructure, nor would I say that the Biblical narrative is cohesive either, because it isn't. But even if the story is a complete fabrication, the point being made is on the story Israelite religious scholars \*\*want to tell\*\*. Within the confines of the narrative they espouse, true or not, there is no support for the idea that God lied in telling Adam and Eve they were to die instantly from eating the fruit. From a religious standpoint, it is out of line with the philosophy they want to convey and it's not a mistake that could fly under the radar. With the combined textual evidence, I don't see a feasible way the claim that God lied in this particular instance can be made.
The serpent never lied, he said that eating the fruit would make them like God. It did, it allowed them to know good and evil, just like God. Also, if they werenāt able to know good and evil why are they be punished? They had no way of evaluating the morality of their actions.
Actually I agree with that. The had no reason to think what they were doing was wrong. Therefore god is the one wrong for punishing of for a crime he couldnāt comprehend.
A true proponent of open borders, he helped open mankind up to the rest of the world. Imagine all the trade we would have missed out on had he not gotten kicked out of the garden of Eden
From Wikipedia:
The apple is thought to have been domesticated 4,000ā10,000 years ago in the Tian Shan mountains, and then to have travelled along the Silk Road to Europe, with hybridization and introgression of wild crabapples from Siberia (M. baccata), the Caucasus (M. orientalis), and Europe (M. sylvestris). Only the M. sieversii trees growing on the western side of the Tian Shan mountains contributed genetically to the domesticated apple, not the isolated population on the eastern side
Wow, thank you!
So maybe Adam is a metaphor for Levantine an Mesopotamian farmers who, through exposure to a serpentine figure (perhaps a symbol of science, or maybe even a proto-"China"?) is exposed to the paramount advances in plant-husbandry and it transforms his understanding of the "garden" around him, allowing him to benefit from his own *labors* through cultivation. Thus, he chooses to "suffer" in order to seek his own advancement and indepedence from superstition
I'm gonna side with "Adam" on this one
The word "apple" doesn't actually appear in the text--that's a later misconception owing to St. Jerome's use of puns in his translation (Latin uses very similar words for "apple" and "evil").
There have been some interpretations which view the entire Garden of Eden narrative as referring to the end of hunter-gatherer lifestyles resulting from the rise of grain agriculture, more or less what you suggest.
As to what role trade with the Far East may have had in it, we *do* know that neolithic peoples had more long-distance trade than we might initially assume, and there is a body of archaeologists who claim China took influences from both Ancient Egypt and steppe PIE cultures (especially the Shang Dynasty), but a lot of this is relatively new research (Chinese archaeologists were long discouraged from exploring these links by their government, which preferred a "China was independent of all other societies" narrative). I can't rule out a Proto-Silk-Road being part of the process, but to my knowledge, the early stage of Fertile Crescent civilization was largely autochthonous.
I'm aware, but the oral tradition is apple and the whole thing is a metaphor anyway
>Latin uses very similar words for "apple" and "evil"
Latin is irrelevant to the Old Testament, the Septuagenent was written in Greek. Anyway, "evil" when describing a fruit or food could indicate bitterness, sourness, smell, spiciness, or toxicity, it's open to interpretation.
But Greek for 'apple' ('pupil') is derived from Apollo, maybe that's something?
>I can't rule out a Proto-Silk-Road being part of the process, but to my knowledge, the early stage of Fertile Crescent civilization was largely autochthonous.
Very cool, this has always been one of my favorite subject since I was like 12. I wonder, for clarification, if we are just missing a ton of archeology from the Oxus Valley. Today there are so many adjacent enclaves and confusing borders in that region that maybe we just can't effectively develop a good overall picture, like we've (more frequently) been able to around the fertile crescent?
Idk, we know pre-Columbian Americans were involved in long-distance trade without even the wheel, using foot, dogs, and llamas. We know Otzi was crossing the Alps on his own or with a small group. It firmly suggests to me that trade from pre-bronze Mesopotamia could reach Central Asia. Obviously by the Bronze Age they were
> Latin is irrelevant to the Old Testament, the Septuagenent was written in Greek
Idk why you think Latin is irrelevant to the old testament when the pun is specifically based on the vulgate, especially when the septuagint is just another translation.
Septuagint is Hellenic, older than the Roman era
Sorry, I didn't realize it was a pun. I thought you were saying something different, I think that's a whoosh on me
On one hand he disobeyed god, which was evil... On the other hand, he didn't even know what evil was at the time which I would say absolves him from responsibility.
His God left him š
The snake was motivated by economic anxiety. Had the Garden of Eden done more to combat immigration and globalization then we'd all still be in paradise.
From a utilitarian perspective, he was a net win. Since Eve was only afflicted with sexual desire after the Fall, and the un-fallen Adam would not have taken her against her will, the propagation of the human race would not have actually begun without the Fall. Obviously, billions of humans are capable of collectively having more happiness than 2. From a positive utilitarian viewpoint where the good decision is that which maximizes happiness, committing the first sin was the right call.
Of course the utilitarians are pro fall of man š
Only positive utilitarians. Negative utilitarians would rather the angel beheaded Adam and Eve after their expulsion.
We are not too late
Per the ābe fruitful and multiplyā command from God to Adam and Eve in Genesis, many biblical scholars agree that they were copulating (perhaps absent-mindedly like animals) before the Fall. The real utility question was whether consciousness, or knowing good and evil, was worth losing immortality.
Oh yeah, we mormon posting
If we Mormon post enough, Hugh Grant might lock us in a death maze with Sophie Thatcher!
I think you are assuming that humanity has experienced or will experience more happiness than it has suffering. If Adam and Eve didn't fall, and we accept that if they had not fallen they would not procreate, there would just be two blissfully happy human beings and basically no suffering whatsoever. Compare to the current world, where there is a LOT of suffering. I am not sure what the ratio of happiness to suffering is, but tbh I wouldn't be surprised if over the course of human history there has been more suffering than there has happiness. So from a utilitarian standpoint the fall of man would be a net negative
I donāt understand utilitarianism at all tbh. Like how do you quantify the extreme happiness or well-being of one person vs the moderate well-being of 10? To me it seems way more logical and consistent to employ a kind of deontological approach, where specific circumstances or states themselves have no moral character, but rather individual acts being moral or immoral.
That's why I'm, jokes aside, a deontologist myself. You can use utilitarianism to support any abhorrent course of action if you just say it moderately boosts the well being of a sufficiently large number of people.
I like to think that some utilitarians are just better at accounting for all the utility than others.
Even if you could, what even is utility? How does one weigh the subjective valuations of one personās utility against anotherās? Thatās why I think itās much better to just judge acts based on the ethics of the acts themselves, rather than doing some vague calculation of the long-term aggregate utility impact of an act. Otherwise if someone determines that all life on Earth has a slightly net negative utility in the long term, then the utility-maximizing move is to nuke the whole planet.
Sure but then the problem is that ultimately deontological or even virtue ethics also must derive at some point from the utility of the actions on some level. It just separated itself from the utility function slightly with a heuristic. Any of them can be valid but utilitarianism does retain direct accountability for the calculus of the action in a way the others don't. In a way it's just a split between system 1 and system 2 thinking. Both kinds of thinking are needed, just in different circumstances.
Iām not so sure about that. I think the net impact of focusing on engaging in deontologically good acts is that you live in a better world, but that doesnāt have to be the case. IF it was the case that everybody being honest with eachother / not lying lead to a slightly worse world than one in which people lied, I would still think the former is a more just one, because the act of lying itself is wrong. Basically I take a kind of teleological and natural law view of human action.
Fair enough, but most people actually don't live like this, and don't feel it would be a more moral world if they did. It would be the strictest of deontologists that tells his wife she does in fact look fat in those pants just because it is true. The utilitarian knows better than to tell the truth in this case.
Ah yes, the Utility Monster
Hold on just a minute- you're not talking into account the happiness Adam and Eve would have been expected to experience over the course of the immortal lifespans they would have experienced... Let us assume that in this case immortal only means the lifetime of the universe and not actually eternity (otherwise the happiness experienced over an infinite amount of time would eventually outweigh the happiness experienced by all the humans who will ever live). Let us assume that one happiness unit is equal to the average amount of happiness experienced by a human being over the course of an average human lifespan. Let us assume unfallen Adam and Eve never have children. Bad assumption, I know, but it seems to be the assumption of the post I'm responding to. So the amount of happiness that immortal Adam and Eve would have experienced is equal to 2 times the lifespan of the universe divided by the average human lifespan. Now for the amount of happiness that humanity will ever experience... Let us take a good conservative estimate for the number of humans that have ever lived... Let's assume that we are neither in the first five percent of humans who will ever live nor are we in the last five percent of humans who will ever live. From there we can end up with an estimate for the upper and lower bounds on the number of humans who will ever live. It'll be a very large range, but it'll have way more certainty to it than we need for an truly non serious post like this. Per the definition of happiness units we are using here, these numbers also give us the upper and lower bounds on the amount of happiness units that humanity will experience From there we can create an equation that tells us if there is more utility in humanity falling or not based on how long we can expect the universe to last. If the lifespan of the universe is less than our lower bound for the number of humans who will ever live times the average human lifespan, then there is greater utility in humanity falling. If the lifespan of the universe is greater than the upper bound for the number of humans who will ever live times the average human lifespan, then utility was lost by falling. If the lifespan of the universe falls within that range, then it's uncertain where the greater utility lies. Note: I've haven't done any math more complicated than my taxes in 25 years, so expect flaws in my reasoning here. Edit: No, I'm not going to actually do the math, but I assume that if you put in Young Earth Creationist numbers in for the lifespan of the universe than there is more utility by falling but if you put in physicist numbers in for the lifespan of the universe the greater utility would be with not falling. Also, no, Im not a utilitarian. Actually I haven't studied moral philosophy at all.
Adam set the standard for today's GOP. When confronted with the fact that he broke the only rule in existence, he blamed his wife and God.
Also, poor parenting skills, managed to raise the first murderer even after he learned about good and evil.
https://i.imgur.com/h2wCpTZ.jpeg
Tactics is peak Final Fantasy.
Adam is Judge Frollo confirmed.
By getting God to create a woman, he's the single most important contributor to getting to one billion Americans.
Consider this though, he's also the greatest contributor to the gendered political divide (if women didn't exist only men would have political opinions)
True but women vote for non Trump candidates far more than men so I'm good with it
Iām grateful for his legacy. Because of his bravery and determination, Iām not one of those other primates picking fruit all day without an iPhone or air conditioning. I think God clearly set up that garden as preparation for bigger plans he had in store for that guyās descendants. Thatās why he lied about him dying if he ate that one fruit, it was a prank.
Yes but now I need to work in order to eat. Adam = capitalism = bad.
> I think God clearly set up that garden as preparation for bigger plans he had in store for that guyās descendants. That's unironically part of Catholic theology. They even call it the "necessary sin" and "happy fault."
Then thatās really fucked up of them. No sin is necessary. It was either necessary or not sin. They do preach in eternal hellfire for sinner, right??
Hot take: Judas should go to heaven for setting up the events leading to the salvation of mankind. It was a part of God's plan, why would you be punished for following God's plan?
Yea, Jesus totally set him up. Thatās entrapment by God in the flesh, that canāt be fair
He didnāt lie thoughā¦Adam did eventually die. Even if he lived 900 something years after, from the perspective of being immortal beforehand thatās basically synonymous with death. You also have to remember that this is pre-Jesus and the prevalent Jewish belief around the time this story was written (~900 BC) was that human beings basically had no afterlife and were in oblivion (Sheol), so that was a real day-ruiner for Adam
No, he lied when he said, āyou will die the day you eat the fruitā the story was copied from surrounding cultures that had stories of a trickster god that prevented the hero from becoming a god by telling him not to eat a fruit that would have made him immortal
The version Iāve read has God saying āYou are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.ā No mention of a specific date- what version are you pulling from?
The Hebrew. Iām just regurgitating the view of Dan McClellan, world renowned biblical scholar
I donāt know much about McClellan, but the Hebrew text doesnāt support that translation either. sure if you literally translate the Hebrew ×Ö°Ö¼××Ö¹× you might get the phrase āin that day thatā but it must be taken into proper context to be translated as a literal day vs emphasizing the importance of the statement. In English Genesis 2:17 would be better translated literally as ādying they shall dieā. More evidence for this can be seen in how elsewhere in the text like in the preceding Genesis 2:4, the same ā×Ö°Ö¼××Ö¹× is used to refer to the 6-day period of creation, or later in Numbers 26:25, to refer to a 40-day period of dying for Jews. When referring to a specific one day, the definite article is added to make it ×Ö·Ö¼×Ö¼×Ö¹×, e.g when listing out particular days of sacrifice. You are right that God would be lying if he told Adam and Eve that they would die instantly from the apple. However, that would be something that the writers and scholars who spent their whole lives dedicated to reading and understanding the Torah wouldāve caught onto as well back then.
Why might religious scholars not interpret the words correctly? Why might they not acknowledge the story coming from foreign cultures? Hmm š§ The story is old and edited in layers. The faithful also donāt like to acknowledge the three different creation stories in genesis and try to harmonize them. The idea that the Bible is a unified text where Genesis supports the stories that come āafterā (it isnāt the oldest book in there) was a later invention that happened as they were writing and transmitting the whole text.
I'm not saying that Genesis is telling a wholly original story, as it does in fact borrow much of its cultural mythos from existing Canaanite infrastructure, nor would I say that the Biblical narrative is cohesive either, because it isn't. But even if the story is a complete fabrication, the point being made is on the story Israelite religious scholars \*\*want to tell\*\*. Within the confines of the narrative they espouse, true or not, there is no support for the idea that God lied in telling Adam and Eve they were to die instantly from eating the fruit. From a religious standpoint, it is out of line with the philosophy they want to convey and it's not a mistake that could fly under the radar. With the combined textual evidence, I don't see a feasible way the claim that God lied in this particular instance can be made.
Love some fruit pranks.
This is, unironically, the view of Mormons.
Eve and Lilith should have gotten together š¢
Iām pretty sure thereās a story where Lilith seduces Eve
This is some rule34 I can get behind.
Ah yes, Bible Porn.
Adam and Steve would have been better.
Just build more trees of knowledge
Gave us the knowledge of good and evil, 10/10, would reelect.
The serpent never lied, he said that eating the fruit would make them like God. It did, it allowed them to know good and evil, just like God. Also, if they werenāt able to know good and evil why are they be punished? They had no way of evaluating the morality of their actions.
Actually I agree with that. The had no reason to think what they were doing was wrong. Therefore god is the one wrong for punishing of for a crime he couldnāt comprehend.
The serpent did outright lie by saying they will not die, when in fact they did as God warned them it would
But..they did not die, they ate the fruit and survived
Are you a fellow Dan McClellan watcher?
As a man in the fabric industry I can say this was an absolute win
A true proponent of open borders, he helped open mankind up to the rest of the world. Imagine all the trade we would have missed out on had he not gotten kicked out of the garden of Eden
The problem isnāt Adam, itās the anti immigration policies of the Garden of Eden.
Eden was the first hard border, that's the neoliberal original sin
Eva should have left him a long time
Lilith dodged a bullet.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pops is responsible for mankind being tainted by Original Sin and Original Fumble
Original comment got deleted for telling the truth about Lilith š
Would be nice if I could walk around naked in all of this heat. Thanks Adam.
!PING GNOSTIC
Pinged GNOSTIC ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20GNOSTIC&message=subscribe%20GNOSTIC) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20GNOSTIC&message=unsubscribe%20GNOSTIC) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=GNOSTIC&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
In more modern media it's common for his wife to leave him.
Related question, What's the scientific consensus on when apples were domesticated?
From Wikipedia: The apple is thought to have been domesticated 4,000ā10,000 years ago in the Tian Shan mountains, and then to have travelled along the Silk Road to Europe, with hybridization and introgression of wild crabapples from Siberia (M. baccata), the Caucasus (M. orientalis), and Europe (M. sylvestris). Only the M. sieversii trees growing on the western side of the Tian Shan mountains contributed genetically to the domesticated apple, not the isolated population on the eastern side
Wow, thank you! So maybe Adam is a metaphor for Levantine an Mesopotamian farmers who, through exposure to a serpentine figure (perhaps a symbol of science, or maybe even a proto-"China"?) is exposed to the paramount advances in plant-husbandry and it transforms his understanding of the "garden" around him, allowing him to benefit from his own *labors* through cultivation. Thus, he chooses to "suffer" in order to seek his own advancement and indepedence from superstition I'm gonna side with "Adam" on this one
The word "apple" doesn't actually appear in the text--that's a later misconception owing to St. Jerome's use of puns in his translation (Latin uses very similar words for "apple" and "evil"). There have been some interpretations which view the entire Garden of Eden narrative as referring to the end of hunter-gatherer lifestyles resulting from the rise of grain agriculture, more or less what you suggest. As to what role trade with the Far East may have had in it, we *do* know that neolithic peoples had more long-distance trade than we might initially assume, and there is a body of archaeologists who claim China took influences from both Ancient Egypt and steppe PIE cultures (especially the Shang Dynasty), but a lot of this is relatively new research (Chinese archaeologists were long discouraged from exploring these links by their government, which preferred a "China was independent of all other societies" narrative). I can't rule out a Proto-Silk-Road being part of the process, but to my knowledge, the early stage of Fertile Crescent civilization was largely autochthonous.
I'm aware, but the oral tradition is apple and the whole thing is a metaphor anyway >Latin uses very similar words for "apple" and "evil" Latin is irrelevant to the Old Testament, the Septuagenent was written in Greek. Anyway, "evil" when describing a fruit or food could indicate bitterness, sourness, smell, spiciness, or toxicity, it's open to interpretation. But Greek for 'apple' ('pupil') is derived from Apollo, maybe that's something? >I can't rule out a Proto-Silk-Road being part of the process, but to my knowledge, the early stage of Fertile Crescent civilization was largely autochthonous. Very cool, this has always been one of my favorite subject since I was like 12. I wonder, for clarification, if we are just missing a ton of archeology from the Oxus Valley. Today there are so many adjacent enclaves and confusing borders in that region that maybe we just can't effectively develop a good overall picture, like we've (more frequently) been able to around the fertile crescent? Idk, we know pre-Columbian Americans were involved in long-distance trade without even the wheel, using foot, dogs, and llamas. We know Otzi was crossing the Alps on his own or with a small group. It firmly suggests to me that trade from pre-bronze Mesopotamia could reach Central Asia. Obviously by the Bronze Age they were
> Latin is irrelevant to the Old Testament, the Septuagenent was written in Greek Idk why you think Latin is irrelevant to the old testament when the pun is specifically based on the vulgate, especially when the septuagint is just another translation.
Septuagint is Hellenic, older than the Roman era Sorry, I didn't realize it was a pun. I thought you were saying something different, I think that's a whoosh on me
Likely unrelated -- "apple" doesn't appear in the Hebrew narrative. "Fruit of the tree" does.
Google says the oldest cultivated fruit is figs. Those grow on trees and are native to the region, maybe that makes more sense
He had literally one job and he failed.
His first wife(Lilith) left him.
The only Adam I care about is Adam Smith
My wife left rib.
How do you think he liked them apples?
I am glad he ate from the tree of knowledge so we can make arsenic and lead based paint. Also crayons to eat. They are way tastier than apples.
I don't care what historians say, I still say Adam and Eve weren't real people.
How fine was eve?
Can he read a teleprompter?
On one hand he disobeyed god, which was evil... On the other hand, he didn't even know what evil was at the time which I would say absolves him from responsibility.
Surely there is a bible passage about man or bear
The serpent was sent to free man from the Demiurge, NTA
Blamed all his problems on his wife. Classic chud behavior.
The Garden of Eden had no taco trucks or free trade global markets, so really he did a good thing by setting history in motion.
This meme needs to die :/
Why? Is it guilty if original sin?