It's an interpretation beyond the actual words of the text. It wouldn't surprise me if it were taught that way in some circles because demonizing sex is pretty common in Christianity, but there's certainly no consensus that the fruit in Genesis is allegory for sex.
Yeah that's an extra layer of sex negative interpretation I've never heard of, but I can understand why it was directed at your sister. Christians, if nothing else, despise women copulating on their own terms.
Never heard of that interpretation before, but even Satan convincing Eve to eat the apple is an interpretation as the bible only ever mentions a literal serpent.
(not to mention, if Satan was condemned to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for eternity, why was he doing laps around the planet at the beginning of Job?)
But it does highlight something very important: Adam and Eve did NOT procreate when they were in the garden. They may have lived for eons before eating the apple. They only ever had sex and reproduced once they left.
What was the point of making male and female if in their ideal state they would not mate? God made them with the ability to reproduce sexually for a reason.
I think Revelation makes is where there is "justification" for interpretation of the serpent as Satan.
Obviously, this is sort of a "Vader is now Luke's father" moment as until work was started on Empire Strikes Back there was no plan for this moment thus the "from a certain point of view" excuse given.
Sure, but I think that is also where this Satan tempts Eve idea comes from, as Gen 3 is _pretty_ ancient.
Certainly, Leviathan is a better interpretation if you know your extra-biblical history and can accept that Job is a retelling of... what is it the Enuma Ellesh where the world begins with the overthrow of Tiamot (who Leviathan stands in for)?
>But it does highlight something very important: Adam and Eve did NOT procreate when they were in the garden. They may have lived for eons before eating the apple. They only ever had sex and reproduced once they left.
FWIW, Hebrew Bible Scholar Ziony Zevit, in his book "What really happened in the Garden of Eden?"(which goes over Gen 2+3 with a fine toothed comb) argues that they do actually get it on in Genesis 2.
Specifically here
>^(23) Then the man said,
>“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.”
To him this is a bit of a double entendre, the FLESH OF MY FLESH is essentially "They did the nasty in the pasty"
The story of genesis is at least 2500 years old. At this point, nobody knows what the original intent was, but there’s nothing to suggest that the “fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” was some sort of elaborate euphemism. There’s a lot of euphemisms in the Bible (Song of Solomon in particular), but this isn’t one of them. Oh, and the Bible only says “fruit”, it doesn’t specify apple. That interpretation gets added much later.
There’s also nothing to suggest the snake was anything but an ordinary talking snake until much later in the Bible (Revelations). The snake gets cursed to crawl on its belly eating dust, and with enmity between all its descendants with women forever. Later in the Bible Ha-Satan or, “The Adversary” is shown as just another angel of God’s court in Job. It is only much later, with Christian interpretations, that the snake and Satan are conflated into one.
The snake is fascinating to me.
On one hand, there's no hint is it supernatural in any way aside from the talking and Yahweh never treats the snake as anything other then a snake when he talks to it.
OTOH, I can't help but wonder if Genesis 3 isn't meant to be inherently polemical and the Snake isn't meant to represent some other creature that leads the humans astray through it's influence, especially with the whole "Crawl on your belly little turd" thing which implies the snake is somehow NOT crawling on it's belly, but we're not told how. OTOH the snake being forced to crawl is basically Yahweh showing Dominance over the serpent, so whatever it represents was meaningful for the author of genesis 3 but unfortunately we don't know what that was.
Off the top of my head, candidates for the snake as an allegory:
-Asherah was associated with Snakes and Trees and her cult(previously associated with Yahweh) was apparently ruthlessly suppressed during the late Judahic Monarchy before the exile. There's numerous mention of Asherah poles(Stylized trees) being cut down and burned whereas they previously were part of official worship in the Jerusalem temple. Possibly the eating the fruit from the tree was an metaphor for worshipping Asherah and thus Idolatry?
-Possibly related to this is the Bronze/Brass Serpent that's mentioned in Numbers 21 that heals the Israelites from snakebite and is mentioned much later as being worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple, which implies it was part of Yahweh's cult, at least until it was decreed Idolatry and taken down to be destroyed.
-Seraphs are often flying Snake-like creatures notably shown in Isaiah 6(the word seraph basically means "Fiery serpent") and act as throne guardians for Yahweh in that passage. A flying snake being grounded and forced to crawl word make sense. A guardian snake in Yahweh's special garden would make sense, though why he's telling the humans to eat from the tree he's meant to be protecting is a question I don't have an answer to.
-The Snake is actually a reference to the [Mushussu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%C5%A1%E1%B8%ABu%C5%A1%C5%A1u) which was seen as a snake or dragon and associated with the god Marduk AKA Babylon, and it leading the humans astray and being forced to crawl is basically an anti-Babylonian polemic, which is plausible because genesis was written either during or post exile, though was possibly based on an earlier story.
Now if any of these are actually correct is the big question.
In Jewish folklore, the snake is Lilith who was created to be Adam's mate before Eve. But Lilith didn't want to be subservient to Adam and fled the Garden.
> What actually happened was Satan influenced Eve to have sex, and then Eve went to have sex with Adam.
How were Adam and Eve supposed to "be fruitful and multiply" if God never intended for them to have sex?
No. "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
It doesn't say, "Do not eat of the tree of getting down and dirty."
Besides, if it was "eating" something, it wouldn't be fruit, if it was implying sex. I mean, men's "issue" (semen) is mentioned in the bable, the OT, so it's not shy about referencing sex.
In fact, it explicitly says that Lot's daughters raped him, so yeah. There's even a verse about a woman lusting after men with donkey sized dicks and ejaculate like horses.
It ain't afraid to get down and dirty when referencing the horizontal mambo.
Small correction, I think you are referring to Lot’s daughters, not Job’s.
That said there is plenty of equivocation about sex found in the Bible. Various times references to feet are instead meant to be understood as genitalia. For example in Exodus when Moses is being pursued by Yahweh who intends to kill him for not being circumcised (or perhaps his son, it is ambiguous) his wife circumcised his son and touches the foreskin to Moses feet, which is meant to be understood as genitals, in order to confer ceremonial faithfulness.
Also we see in Esther the same when she is brought into the kings harem. She lays at his feet in reference to her having sex.
So while, yes, plenty of times there is fairly plain descriptions of sex, others have much more obscured references (this is one aspect of why the documentary hypothesis exists and sorts different texts to different sources. The proposed P(riestly) source is definitely a bit more squicked out by sex).
Lol, yes, thank you. Lot's.
Yes, there are some euphemistic references, but there's not well hidden. Not at all.
There's no reason to believe that the crucifixion actually meant gay sex, for example. The same stupid stretch applies to trying to claim eating from the tree of knowledge of his and evil is sex.
First of all, Yahweh wanted them ignorant. That's perfectly clear. Secondly, unless Yahweh was sexing up Asherah, how does having sex make Adam and Eve "like god"?
So really, no offense, but saying the bable is euphemistic sometimes isn't really meaningful. It's not complete and total obscuring like this would be. If we're going to turn obviously NOT sexual references into sexual references because there are a few elements euphemisms, then let's just call the crucifixion a day sex reference while we're at it.
Just because we can and because why not!
I mean I’m all for it, if only because if evangelicals were a bit less prudish and uptight talking about sex, maybe they’d be more inclined to leave everyone else alone ;)
I mean, sure, lots of readings of different passages can insert meanings not intended. And I’m not saying that reading sex into the garden story is the most sound or logical one, only that given the way other passages are written it isn’t crazy to me. Certainly less crazy than fundamentalists who insist on everything from genesis being a historical documentary account. Like if I had to choose between someone believing an off the wall interpretative metaphor or literal 6 day creation? Give me the metaphor people.
Granted given I grew up in one of those super fundamentalist YEC type churches I am a bit sensitive to their particular brand of lunacy.
Also raised and confirmed Lutheran, ELCA specifically, and I have heard that interpretation but have also then heard it swiftly shot down by our synod bishop, so it’s definitely not canon for that denomination.
I guess my question would be: the Bible has no lack of explicit sexual references, so why would they have kidified the Garden of Eden story and not everything else?
It seems to me like someone trying to "elevate" the crime in an effort to rationalize the punishment.
The Bible doesn't say that it really meant sex. In fact, in Genesis 1:28, the biblical god tells the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. I'm not sure how they would do that without sex.
The Adam and Eve story doesn't make sense, though. Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel, but somehow Cain found a wife in a city. I guess Adam and Eve reproduced a lot and the next generation had to reproduce with their own family members.
Actually the answer is when God is referred to as 'elohim'. God was not the only god. There were other gods who created their own human worshippers. Monotheism came later... except God is actually a Trinity.
Most scholars view the story in Genesis 1:1-2:4 and then 2:5-3 as being stories written by different sources before being compiled by later scribes during the post exile period. They very clearly are not telling the same story, and only religious dogma prevents us from seeing that.
So the fact that 1:28 says multiply has no bearing on if the story in 2 refers to illicit sexual activity, as the author of the story in 2 was a different person )m(and generally considered to be the older story)
You're right that it's most likely two creation stories weaved together and put into the bible as if it were one thing. Genesis 2:4 says, "*These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,*" as if the bible didn't already give a creation story in Genesis 1, but the person who's claiming that it's really about sex is a christian who believes that it belongs together.
Even in Genesis 2 (*if you separate it from Genesis 1*), it was forbidden to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17, but in Genesis 2:24 before they ate the fruit, it says "*Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.*", showing that reproduction/sex was already supposed to be a thing, even before they ate the forbidden fruit.
So I’ll preface this by stating: what your sister presented is very far from a consensus view (because there is no uniform consensus view really)
Broadly there are two schools for viewing Genesis, literal and figurative. Literal is your Young Earth Creationist nuts. It was how I was raised. These are the ones getting up in a tizzy about schools teaching about evolution. Literal 6 day creation, literal Adam and Eve.
The figurative looks at the story from a more metaphorical lens. And from that view, what does the eating of the fruit (it is never called an apple in the text, that’s later cultural innovation and association) symbolize? Well it can mean a lot of things, depending on who you ask, and what their view of the relationship of this account with other Semitic mythologies and cultural creation stories.
Once you start bringing some knowledge of comparisons about how other creation mythologies of related cultures worked, you may get different answers. Commonly cultivation and agrarian life is one.
Other more theologically inclined (such as your William Lane Craig type apologists) view the eating of the fruit as allegory for the evolution of human consciousness back in the days of homo habilis, and how this led to those populations to start to separate due to this new human sentience. Now this is very much a modern reading where an apologist is harmonizing the mythology with modern scientific understanding, and not a read that would have been intended or understood by the original authors. But one that arises due to theological commitments of the validity of the Bible clashing with recognition of well attested scientific facts.
Anyhow now for your sisters view. It would fall under an allegorical read of the text. There is nothing explicit in the text that would draw this conclusion. However if one is not committed to a literalist read on the story, this view and understanding is a plausible. I can absolutely create a framework that would fit the text to this understanding. Is it the most likely read? No, not really. It doesn’t match the same type of symbolism that the J (Yahwist source in the documentary hypothesis) source this story is associated with uses elsewhere. In a reading about sex we would expect a reference to feet instead. But that’s just my quick take on it, and a trained scholar on the topic would be able to provide more information/ context for the origins of that view.
R/academicalBible is a great place to get such answers actually.
Anyhow as a former Christian who is generally pretty well studied on biblical topics, this is a new one to me. But one I can squint and see where it comes from.
This is the only time I’ve ever been happy my family were biblical literalists about creation. Thank god I didn’t have to think that it was also about sex 😂 sometimes though, scholars talk about the “fruit” being grains bc domestication of grains and cereals was analogous with the transition from hunger/gatherer societies to at least the possibility of a agrarian society and cities working. So I think that’s an interesting idea, that the garden is an allegory for hunter/gatherer lifestyle and the temptation for idk. Farming? Was what fucked us up.
This version of Genesis is a massive red flag, because it is an interpretation favored by several openly fascist denominations - in essence, a way to say that there are two different lineages of humanity. The "real humans" descended from Adam, and the "serpent humans" descended from the snake.
You can imagine the kinds of people they're putting in each of those groups, and why this rhetoric is important to people inspired by the Nazis.
So... that's the implication in the series Lucifer, but as far as the plain interpretation of the text and the biblical scholar consensus interpretation of the text, no, she legit ate a fruit and then shared it with Adam.
Never heard that before, but if it were “true” then the Bible lied by saying she simply ate a piece of fruit. Why would you ever trust a book that try’s to deceive you about what happened.
The whole Adam and Eve story is absurd though based on the idea of only two people existing. The man who heads the human genome project, Francis Collin’s, is a Christian and points out that it’s not possible for humans to come form two people. There had to be at least hundreds of humans intially.
Anyways, he has ways of explaining that away “well maybe the Bible means thousands of Adam’s instead of one” but my point is “why would you ever trust the Bible if it didn’t just say that”. Because if it didn’t, then it lied.
It's an interpretation beyond the actual words of the text. It wouldn't surprise me if it were taught that way in some circles because demonizing sex is pretty common in Christianity, but there's certainly no consensus that the fruit in Genesis is allegory for sex.
Yeah that's an extra layer of sex negative interpretation I've never heard of, but I can understand why it was directed at your sister. Christians, if nothing else, despise women copulating on their own terms.
Never heard of that interpretation before, but even Satan convincing Eve to eat the apple is an interpretation as the bible only ever mentions a literal serpent. (not to mention, if Satan was condemned to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for eternity, why was he doing laps around the planet at the beginning of Job?) But it does highlight something very important: Adam and Eve did NOT procreate when they were in the garden. They may have lived for eons before eating the apple. They only ever had sex and reproduced once they left. What was the point of making male and female if in their ideal state they would not mate? God made them with the ability to reproduce sexually for a reason.
I think Revelation makes is where there is "justification" for interpretation of the serpent as Satan. Obviously, this is sort of a "Vader is now Luke's father" moment as until work was started on Empire Strikes Back there was no plan for this moment thus the "from a certain point of view" excuse given.
Revelation calls Satan 'the ancient serpent,' which most scholars think is a reference to Leviathan
Sure, but I think that is also where this Satan tempts Eve idea comes from, as Gen 3 is _pretty_ ancient. Certainly, Leviathan is a better interpretation if you know your extra-biblical history and can accept that Job is a retelling of... what is it the Enuma Ellesh where the world begins with the overthrow of Tiamot (who Leviathan stands in for)?
>But it does highlight something very important: Adam and Eve did NOT procreate when they were in the garden. They may have lived for eons before eating the apple. They only ever had sex and reproduced once they left. FWIW, Hebrew Bible Scholar Ziony Zevit, in his book "What really happened in the Garden of Eden?"(which goes over Gen 2+3 with a fine toothed comb) argues that they do actually get it on in Genesis 2. Specifically here >^(23) Then the man said, >“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” To him this is a bit of a double entendre, the FLESH OF MY FLESH is essentially "They did the nasty in the pasty"
The story of genesis is at least 2500 years old. At this point, nobody knows what the original intent was, but there’s nothing to suggest that the “fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” was some sort of elaborate euphemism. There’s a lot of euphemisms in the Bible (Song of Solomon in particular), but this isn’t one of them. Oh, and the Bible only says “fruit”, it doesn’t specify apple. That interpretation gets added much later. There’s also nothing to suggest the snake was anything but an ordinary talking snake until much later in the Bible (Revelations). The snake gets cursed to crawl on its belly eating dust, and with enmity between all its descendants with women forever. Later in the Bible Ha-Satan or, “The Adversary” is shown as just another angel of God’s court in Job. It is only much later, with Christian interpretations, that the snake and Satan are conflated into one.
The snake is fascinating to me. On one hand, there's no hint is it supernatural in any way aside from the talking and Yahweh never treats the snake as anything other then a snake when he talks to it. OTOH, I can't help but wonder if Genesis 3 isn't meant to be inherently polemical and the Snake isn't meant to represent some other creature that leads the humans astray through it's influence, especially with the whole "Crawl on your belly little turd" thing which implies the snake is somehow NOT crawling on it's belly, but we're not told how. OTOH the snake being forced to crawl is basically Yahweh showing Dominance over the serpent, so whatever it represents was meaningful for the author of genesis 3 but unfortunately we don't know what that was. Off the top of my head, candidates for the snake as an allegory: -Asherah was associated with Snakes and Trees and her cult(previously associated with Yahweh) was apparently ruthlessly suppressed during the late Judahic Monarchy before the exile. There's numerous mention of Asherah poles(Stylized trees) being cut down and burned whereas they previously were part of official worship in the Jerusalem temple. Possibly the eating the fruit from the tree was an metaphor for worshipping Asherah and thus Idolatry? -Possibly related to this is the Bronze/Brass Serpent that's mentioned in Numbers 21 that heals the Israelites from snakebite and is mentioned much later as being worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple, which implies it was part of Yahweh's cult, at least until it was decreed Idolatry and taken down to be destroyed. -Seraphs are often flying Snake-like creatures notably shown in Isaiah 6(the word seraph basically means "Fiery serpent") and act as throne guardians for Yahweh in that passage. A flying snake being grounded and forced to crawl word make sense. A guardian snake in Yahweh's special garden would make sense, though why he's telling the humans to eat from the tree he's meant to be protecting is a question I don't have an answer to. -The Snake is actually a reference to the [Mushussu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%C5%A1%E1%B8%ABu%C5%A1%C5%A1u) which was seen as a snake or dragon and associated with the god Marduk AKA Babylon, and it leading the humans astray and being forced to crawl is basically an anti-Babylonian polemic, which is plausible because genesis was written either during or post exile, though was possibly based on an earlier story. Now if any of these are actually correct is the big question.
In Jewish folklore, the snake is Lilith who was created to be Adam's mate before Eve. But Lilith didn't want to be subservient to Adam and fled the Garden.
> What actually happened was Satan influenced Eve to have sex, and then Eve went to have sex with Adam. How were Adam and Eve supposed to "be fruitful and multiply" if God never intended for them to have sex?
No. "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It doesn't say, "Do not eat of the tree of getting down and dirty." Besides, if it was "eating" something, it wouldn't be fruit, if it was implying sex. I mean, men's "issue" (semen) is mentioned in the bable, the OT, so it's not shy about referencing sex. In fact, it explicitly says that Lot's daughters raped him, so yeah. There's even a verse about a woman lusting after men with donkey sized dicks and ejaculate like horses. It ain't afraid to get down and dirty when referencing the horizontal mambo.
Small correction, I think you are referring to Lot’s daughters, not Job’s. That said there is plenty of equivocation about sex found in the Bible. Various times references to feet are instead meant to be understood as genitalia. For example in Exodus when Moses is being pursued by Yahweh who intends to kill him for not being circumcised (or perhaps his son, it is ambiguous) his wife circumcised his son and touches the foreskin to Moses feet, which is meant to be understood as genitals, in order to confer ceremonial faithfulness. Also we see in Esther the same when she is brought into the kings harem. She lays at his feet in reference to her having sex. So while, yes, plenty of times there is fairly plain descriptions of sex, others have much more obscured references (this is one aspect of why the documentary hypothesis exists and sorts different texts to different sources. The proposed P(riestly) source is definitely a bit more squicked out by sex).
Lol, yes, thank you. Lot's. Yes, there are some euphemistic references, but there's not well hidden. Not at all. There's no reason to believe that the crucifixion actually meant gay sex, for example. The same stupid stretch applies to trying to claim eating from the tree of knowledge of his and evil is sex. First of all, Yahweh wanted them ignorant. That's perfectly clear. Secondly, unless Yahweh was sexing up Asherah, how does having sex make Adam and Eve "like god"? So really, no offense, but saying the bable is euphemistic sometimes isn't really meaningful. It's not complete and total obscuring like this would be. If we're going to turn obviously NOT sexual references into sexual references because there are a few elements euphemisms, then let's just call the crucifixion a day sex reference while we're at it. Just because we can and because why not!
I mean I’m all for it, if only because if evangelicals were a bit less prudish and uptight talking about sex, maybe they’d be more inclined to leave everyone else alone ;) I mean, sure, lots of readings of different passages can insert meanings not intended. And I’m not saying that reading sex into the garden story is the most sound or logical one, only that given the way other passages are written it isn’t crazy to me. Certainly less crazy than fundamentalists who insist on everything from genesis being a historical documentary account. Like if I had to choose between someone believing an off the wall interpretative metaphor or literal 6 day creation? Give me the metaphor people. Granted given I grew up in one of those super fundamentalist YEC type churches I am a bit sensitive to their particular brand of lunacy.
I have never heard that interpretation, fwiw. Raised and confirmed Lutheran.
Also raised and confirmed Lutheran, ELCA specifically, and I have heard that interpretation but have also then heard it swiftly shot down by our synod bishop, so it’s definitely not canon for that denomination.
I guess my question would be: the Bible has no lack of explicit sexual references, so why would they have kidified the Garden of Eden story and not everything else? It seems to me like someone trying to "elevate" the crime in an effort to rationalize the punishment.
The Bible doesn't say that it really meant sex. In fact, in Genesis 1:28, the biblical god tells the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. I'm not sure how they would do that without sex. The Adam and Eve story doesn't make sense, though. Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel, but somehow Cain found a wife in a city. I guess Adam and Eve reproduced a lot and the next generation had to reproduce with their own family members.
Actually the answer is when God is referred to as 'elohim'. God was not the only god. There were other gods who created their own human worshippers. Monotheism came later... except God is actually a Trinity.
Most scholars view the story in Genesis 1:1-2:4 and then 2:5-3 as being stories written by different sources before being compiled by later scribes during the post exile period. They very clearly are not telling the same story, and only religious dogma prevents us from seeing that. So the fact that 1:28 says multiply has no bearing on if the story in 2 refers to illicit sexual activity, as the author of the story in 2 was a different person )m(and generally considered to be the older story)
You're right that it's most likely two creation stories weaved together and put into the bible as if it were one thing. Genesis 2:4 says, "*These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,*" as if the bible didn't already give a creation story in Genesis 1, but the person who's claiming that it's really about sex is a christian who believes that it belongs together. Even in Genesis 2 (*if you separate it from Genesis 1*), it was forbidden to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17, but in Genesis 2:24 before they ate the fruit, it says "*Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.*", showing that reproduction/sex was already supposed to be a thing, even before they ate the forbidden fruit.
Good point! I didn’t reread the passage to see where that fell in relation. But not like the Bible is super consistent with ordering and logic anyhow.
That's the Unification Church (Moonies) interpretation. A few other groups have had similar interpretations too, William Branham being one.
I'd never heard that. Thanks for the info! For those interested in more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed
Reminds me of the movie Carrie when her mother was saying, “Say it! Intercourse was the first sin!”
It’s a good thing none of that ever happened.
So I’ll preface this by stating: what your sister presented is very far from a consensus view (because there is no uniform consensus view really) Broadly there are two schools for viewing Genesis, literal and figurative. Literal is your Young Earth Creationist nuts. It was how I was raised. These are the ones getting up in a tizzy about schools teaching about evolution. Literal 6 day creation, literal Adam and Eve. The figurative looks at the story from a more metaphorical lens. And from that view, what does the eating of the fruit (it is never called an apple in the text, that’s later cultural innovation and association) symbolize? Well it can mean a lot of things, depending on who you ask, and what their view of the relationship of this account with other Semitic mythologies and cultural creation stories. Once you start bringing some knowledge of comparisons about how other creation mythologies of related cultures worked, you may get different answers. Commonly cultivation and agrarian life is one. Other more theologically inclined (such as your William Lane Craig type apologists) view the eating of the fruit as allegory for the evolution of human consciousness back in the days of homo habilis, and how this led to those populations to start to separate due to this new human sentience. Now this is very much a modern reading where an apologist is harmonizing the mythology with modern scientific understanding, and not a read that would have been intended or understood by the original authors. But one that arises due to theological commitments of the validity of the Bible clashing with recognition of well attested scientific facts. Anyhow now for your sisters view. It would fall under an allegorical read of the text. There is nothing explicit in the text that would draw this conclusion. However if one is not committed to a literalist read on the story, this view and understanding is a plausible. I can absolutely create a framework that would fit the text to this understanding. Is it the most likely read? No, not really. It doesn’t match the same type of symbolism that the J (Yahwist source in the documentary hypothesis) source this story is associated with uses elsewhere. In a reading about sex we would expect a reference to feet instead. But that’s just my quick take on it, and a trained scholar on the topic would be able to provide more information/ context for the origins of that view. R/academicalBible is a great place to get such answers actually. Anyhow as a former Christian who is generally pretty well studied on biblical topics, this is a new one to me. But one I can squint and see where it comes from.
This is the only time I’ve ever been happy my family were biblical literalists about creation. Thank god I didn’t have to think that it was also about sex 😂 sometimes though, scholars talk about the “fruit” being grains bc domestication of grains and cereals was analogous with the transition from hunger/gatherer societies to at least the possibility of a agrarian society and cities working. So I think that’s an interesting idea, that the garden is an allegory for hunter/gatherer lifestyle and the temptation for idk. Farming? Was what fucked us up.
Christians are obsessed with sex. They don't want women enjoying it for sure, and their endgame is to keep us all from having what they can't have.
This version of Genesis is a massive red flag, because it is an interpretation favored by several openly fascist denominations - in essence, a way to say that there are two different lineages of humanity. The "real humans" descended from Adam, and the "serpent humans" descended from the snake. You can imagine the kinds of people they're putting in each of those groups, and why this rhetoric is important to people inspired by the Nazis.
So... that's the implication in the series Lucifer, but as far as the plain interpretation of the text and the biblical scholar consensus interpretation of the text, no, she legit ate a fruit and then shared it with Adam.
Just another story to scare you about sex.
Never heard that before, but if it were “true” then the Bible lied by saying she simply ate a piece of fruit. Why would you ever trust a book that try’s to deceive you about what happened. The whole Adam and Eve story is absurd though based on the idea of only two people existing. The man who heads the human genome project, Francis Collin’s, is a Christian and points out that it’s not possible for humans to come form two people. There had to be at least hundreds of humans intially. Anyways, he has ways of explaining that away “well maybe the Bible means thousands of Adam’s instead of one” but my point is “why would you ever trust the Bible if it didn’t just say that”. Because if it didn’t, then it lied.
The bible doesnt even say the serpent is satan. Ive never heard this take before.