I think it’s a misread to say it gave us evil. The garden is portrayed as being a paradise with a tree of knowledge. The man and the women, as they self-identified themselves to be, were both allowed agency to be themselves and be blessed without the burden of knowledge, so long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. Both the man and the woman independently made the conscious decision to break the rule given to them to not eat the fruit of knowledge. The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God, through the eating of the fruit. My take on this is that story is meant to show that God can help you and will help you, but if you choose to go against his will you have the face the consequences of that decision on your own. However, you can still seek forgiveness for your decisions and even be forgiven, but this doesn’t magically put everything back to the way things were before.
The story is more or less a cultural device to explain good and evil from the perspective of the early Israelite society. The story itself is rippled throughout the Bible in this way: God gives instructions, the people follow the instructions at first but then grow complacent, bad things happen because people stop following God’s instructions, and then one of the leaders of the tribe of Israel steps in to help get people back on the right path of following God’s instructions.
I’ll add that functionally Genesis is three serparate creation stories that were pulled into one book. Culturally, the early Israelites borrowed some of the elements of other creation stories of their time seen in other cultures such as the Babylonians. The first creation story is the seven days, the second is what we know as the story Adam and Eve, and the third was the story of the great flood.
Its not a misread, your interpretation skips the important parts. The problem with your interpretation is right here:
be blessed without the burden of knowledge
The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God,
The knowledge is “of good and evil.” Until eating they couldn’t know that breaking a covenant was wrong no matter what their god has told them. They did not know that they should listen to what their god said, the concept of “should/shouldn’t” was devoid of meaning to them. While they had free will, literally all actions were purposeless and the two would just bounce around the garden not knowing if they should actually listen to their god or not. This becomes more evident when you read further as well as look at the stories from neighboring cultures this was borrowed from.
Later in the chapter their god speaks to the other deities in the pantheon about how the humans must be cast out of the garden as having their new abilities, may find the tree of everlasting life and become as powerful as the rest of the gods and supernatural beings. The idea is that having knowledge of the ramifications of one’s actions and living forever would mean that humans would no longer be controlled by the gods. That having free will, knowing what is good and what is evil and being immune to the wrath of the gods would render them all powerful.
This narrative then follows that their god casts them out into the world riddled with pain and suffering and humans eventually lose their knowledge of the past and how their god has their thumb on them. This is why Satan, “The Accusor”, is called the bringer of light. As sin is defined as a transgression against god, Satan is there to show how the fall of man was truly an enslavement by their god. Rather than leave humans dumb bouncing around the garden or immune to suffering, their god keeps humans ensnared in this system of life, suffering and everlasting torment. the story of the garden is what makes their god relevant when they otherwise shouldn’t be.
I agree, since all the animals are seemingly posed as being remade on the ark and suddenly you have the first people walking the earth again after the flood.
Note: this is not a me thinking the ark exists, it’s a commentary of the story being retold.
I think it’s a misread to say it gave us evil. The garden is portrayed as being a paradise with a tree of knowledge. The man and the women, as they self-identified themselves to be, were both allowed agency to be themselves and be blessed without the burden of knowledge, so long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. Both the man and the woman independently made the conscious decision to break the rule given to them to not eat the fruit of knowledge. The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God, through the eating of the fruit. My take on this is that story is meant to show that God can help you and will help you, but if you choose to go against his will you have the face the consequences of that decision on your own. However, you can still seek forgiveness for your decisions and even be forgiven, but this doesn’t magically put everything back to the way things were before.
The story is more or less a cultural device to explain good and evil from the perspective of the early Israelite society. The story itself is rippled throughout the Bible in this way: God gives instructions, the people follow the instructions at first but then grow complacent, bad things happen because people stop following God’s instructions, and then one of the leaders of the tribe of Israel steps in to help get people back on the right path of following God’s instructions.
I’ll add that functionally Genesis is three serparate creation stories that were pulled into one book. Culturally, the early Israelites borrowed some of the elements of other creation stories of their time seen in other cultures such as the Babylonians. The first creation story is the seven days, the second is what we know as the story Adam and Eve, and the third was the story of the great flood.
Its not a misread, your interpretation skips the important parts. The problem with your interpretation is right here:
The knowledge is “of good and evil.” Until eating they couldn’t know that breaking a covenant was wrong no matter what their god has told them. They did not know that they should listen to what their god said, the concept of “should/shouldn’t” was devoid of meaning to them. While they had free will, literally all actions were purposeless and the two would just bounce around the garden not knowing if they should actually listen to their god or not. This becomes more evident when you read further as well as look at the stories from neighboring cultures this was borrowed from.
Later in the chapter their god speaks to the other deities in the pantheon about how the humans must be cast out of the garden as having their new abilities, may find the tree of everlasting life and become as powerful as the rest of the gods and supernatural beings. The idea is that having knowledge of the ramifications of one’s actions and living forever would mean that humans would no longer be controlled by the gods. That having free will, knowing what is good and what is evil and being immune to the wrath of the gods would render them all powerful.
This narrative then follows that their god casts them out into the world riddled with pain and suffering and humans eventually lose their knowledge of the past and how their god has their thumb on them. This is why Satan, “The Accusor”, is called the bringer of light. As sin is defined as a transgression against god, Satan is there to show how the fall of man was truly an enslavement by their god. Rather than leave humans dumb bouncing around the garden or immune to suffering, their god keeps humans ensnared in this system of life, suffering and everlasting torment. the story of the garden is what makes their god relevant when they otherwise shouldn’t be.
And don’t forget the really fun part, where you can actually still see the three flood stories smashed into one if you look at the sentences.
I agree, since all the animals are seemingly posed as being remade on the ark and suddenly you have the first people walking the earth again after the flood.
Note: this is not a me thinking the ark exists, it’s a commentary of the story being retold.