So What Is This Sin That We Are All Suppose To Atone For?
by Ra-Harakhte
The entire thread of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind, that sin being the original sin as done by Adam and Eve. So I ask you, if that story of Eden were to be shown to be a myth, what basis and impact would the story of Jesus have on humanity?
Answer: None.
Without the fall in the Garden, mankind could never be called "sinners" or be plagued with this "fall from Grace" nonsense for which we must atone for. Granted, mankind is capable of doing criminal acts that are quite heinous, but those acts cannot be attributed to a fable of people in a garden or a fall from "god." Those acts have everything to do with being ignorant of one's actions and possible reactions -- not from being born evil or downcast from the first humans that walked the planet.
By simple reason alone, one can determine just how ridiculous this story is. Let's take a look at that.
1) The easiest evidence of the "Garden of Eden's" mythical and non-historical nature is the snake. Everyone knows snakes cannot talk.
Now some people believe this one did because it was Satan. But that's not true either. Satan did not exist in the Jewish theology when this passage was written. The concept of an all-powerful evil being came later in Jewish history, after they had contact with the Persians, who had a "devil" figure in their mythology. In fact, the Persian devil, Angra Mainyu, is practically identical to the biblical Satan. Besides that, the text never said the snake was evil, nor that it was Satan (This is the theists' interpretation without any correspondending suggestion or evidence from the text itself).
In the KJV version of the Bible, the snake was described as being "subtil". Now this "subtil" is not the same as "subtle" or "sly" that most people mistakenly attach to this poor creature. In some very old dictionaries, "subtil" meant "thinned and refined". If you apply this to the snake, you get a whole different perspective. It sounds to me the that the snake was the most refined creation God had made, and the text confirms it: The snake knew the function of the fruit, and also knew Adam and Eve would not die (". . . God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, either shall ye touch it, lest ye die." - Gen 3:3). Everyone knows they didn't die, they lived. They lived to create the entire human race, according to scripture (But the again, the scripture mentions nothing of them giving birth to Cain's wife. Hmmmmm . . .) Besides, it was never noted that they were immortal when they were first created, it is just a conclusion that the clergy have drawn. Lo, even the scripture quotes God as saying "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" (-Gen 3:22) -- That alone says that they weren't meant to be immortal to begin with -- So we have undeniable PROOF that the snake didn't lie, but in fact it was GOD who is guilty of heinous deception.
In all honesty, everything physical dies, that's the law of nature, and it is absurd to think that all of it is because of a pair of people eating a fruit.
2) Another big example why the Adam and Eve story is obviously not historical is the "Tree of Knowledge" itself, and God's role in putting it in the Garden. It is quite simple: If God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, then why create it and put it in the Garden in the first place? What was its purpose? So the animals could eat from it and obtain its virtues? It makes absolutely no sense to create this wonderful Garden, filled with all these great and perfect things -- except this ONE thing. That one stands out, and obviously with a purpose. Well, that and the snake. Is it coincidence the snake just happened to be at that very tree when Eve saw it? Not when it comes to being a writer of fiction...
Using the parallel that God is the parent and Adam and Eve are children, if God didn't want them to eat from the tree, He shouldn't have made it, or at the very least, leave it out in the open. As a parent, if you don't want your child to eat from the cookie jar, you put it away, out of reach.
At this point, God himself is also suspect for a pair of reasons: The snake is credited for "tempting" Eve to eat the apple. Now, if Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God, then doesn't the snake give us a glimpse that God himself may also be tempted? Ah, not God you say, but think about it. One could say God can be easily tempted, just have someone shed some blood for your salvation.
The other reason lies in the simple fact that God is supposedly all-knowing and all-seeing. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be a God then -- certainly not one that creates an entire universe. Wouldn't He have foreknowledge of the pair eating the fruit? Wouldn't He know what was happening with his children during the time of their "temptation"?
How about this: "And the Lord God called upon Adam, and said unto him, Where Art thou?" (-Gen 3:9). This is not proper for an all-knowing and all-seeing God. Of course, many theists just say he is "teasing". This doesn't stand up at all in the face of reason. It is the theist's way of trying to maintain this flimsy belief system for himself, but let's face it -- Adam and Eve just ate the forbidden fruit which was to "kill them." God would not be in a "teasing mood," as the rest of the scripture describes when he finally catches up to them. Then this great figure is stupid enough to ask "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" <------ God didn't know??? If God couldn't get all this straight, see it ahead of time, refuse to stop it during its progress for the only TWO people in the known universe made in his image and likeness, then how can we give any credence to Biblical prophecy, such as Revelations? It has no foundation and falls faster than a rickety house of playing cards.
That's just a few arguments that, through reason, totally debunk the authenticity of the story. Let's take a look at some historical proofs now.
This story, like all other Biblical stories, is not even original amongst the Hebrews -- it has been traced to other sources. Even the name Adam is not Hebrew.
Adam Adami is found in the Chaldean scriptures which predate the Jewish script by many many years; it was also known to the Babylonians. In some Babylonian creation tablets, the first man is Adamu, and the story parallels Eden all the way. In a Hindu book two thousand years older than the Bible, the story of Adam and Eve is retold almost word for word, where the first man is Adama and the first woman Heva.
When you have a group of nomads, which the early Jewish people were, it becomes obvious where they heard and learned these stories. It is also commonly known in sociological science that cultures take stories and adapt them and change them to fit their own paradigms and systems, taking into account changes in environment and value systems as time marches on. In fact, the Bible version itself is a testimony to this, for there are versions in other Jewish texts were Eve wasn't Adam's first wife. Adam's first wife was Lilith, whom he rejected because of her sexual lust, to which then God made Eve. Several supersitious beliefs have arisen out of this totally different version of the "other" first women, too. It in no way says these stories were actual historical events. It is pure allegory. When a story has a talking snake in it, it ranks right up there with Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse -- it's make believe and fantasy. Let's wake up, people.
Or the more appropriate question what is Adam and Eve?
It is amazing how quickly people forget just where religious dramas first got started -- the skies, with the sun and the moon and the stars. So why should Adam and Eve be any different?
It's not.
The fall is simply this: The sun (being the snake) passing through the autumnal equinox (the sign of the Virgin, Eve) and "falls" into the winter quarter of the year (what we call "fall"). As this happens, as the signs of Bootes (Adam) and Eve (Virgo) fall on the horizon line in the west, the constellation Perseus appears in the east, appearing as a being heralding a flaming sword and coming with vengeance.
That's all it is. It is a story mythologizing the sun and stars. It is a myth.
There is NONE.
And so there was no need for Jesus either . . . And so he never was . . .
ON TO: Jesus Christ, Man or Myth?
copyright 1998 by Ra-Harakhte (Ra-Harakhte@webtv.net)
