Here's an interpretation I bet you didn't see coming: the story of the Garden of Eden Incident is basically true, but is about 50,000 years old and was poorly understood at the time. Thus, it has become a bit distorted and somewhat metaphorical. "God" and the "serpent" in the story are actually aliens, and the story involves a couple of humans gaining consciousness.
Of course, all that sounds like a lot of malarkey, but I'll give you a couple of points to research to indicate the story is not just some fairy tale someone made up one day.
First, do you know where the name "Eden" comes from? In Sumerian, "e" means "house, home, or temple", and "din" means "pure or bright". When referring to a person, "din" is often translated as "righteous". The Sumerians called their deities "dingir". So "e-din" would be "the home of the righteous" or even "the home of the gods".
Second, were you aware there were two stages of "modern humans"? There were "anatomically modern humans" that, with a shave and a haircut and a 3-piece suit would pass unnoticed on the subway. They were around for 200,000 years but they acted basically just like animals (no culture, monkey-level tools, etc.). Then suddenly and for no apparent reason about 50,000 years ago, they became "behaviorally modern". They started developing very quickly with all kinds of tools and tech. Quite curious, no?
The point is, IMHO there's quite a bit to understand clearly about the story until you get to some of the finer points.
That is a diff can of worms, maybe we are not being told the truth about the early modern humans? However I have long been confused why eating of the fruit of knowledge would be a bad thing, so we were supposed to be dumb? Also kids learn about the concept of nakedness from their parent as the grow, it seems to be cultural on the one hand, but then on the flip side, it's nearly universal in one form or another so that's a bit weird too. You can see in some tribes where it's very hot, they wear close to nothing and nakedness is not as big a deal but that seems to be the exception to the rule.
As I mentioned, I believe the story is 50K years old, so we we must be as precise as possible when reading it if we hope to extract what actually happened so very long ago.
Note that they didn't eat the fruit of the "tree of knowledge" (as in facts and figures or what have you), they ate of the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Big difference, yes?
And what is "the knowledge of good and evil"? Well, a clue is that animals and children under a certain age are not generally expected to know the difference between good and evil. Only older children and adults are held responsible for knowing the difference and acting accordingly. So what do they have that animals and small children do not?
As you bring up, the other clue is nakedness. But is that precisely the issue? The story is probably slightly metaphorical or distorted here. Is this a way of saying that Adam and Eve first felt shame or guilt, where they did not before? Can one feel shame or guilt without a moral sense?
Also important in deciphering this event is that God expressed apprehension that, "their eyes will be opened and they will become as the gods". What happens right before you first open your eyes in the morning?
A couple of final but crucial points, virtually always missed. God never says knowledge (of anything) is bad. Rather, he forbids them to eat the fruit and tells them they will die if they do so. Do they die? And does the nachash tempt Eve, or does he simply tell her that she will not die? Was that a lie?
As I hope you can see, the story is nearly universally misread, and I would point to that as the reason for so much controversy and misunderstanding.
Ok still confused, why would it be bad to have a moral sense? Were we meant to be amoral? Is it bad that our eyes would be opened? If this is God, would he not know that the serpent would tempt us and that we'd eat? Was this a trap for us to screw up? And if they didn't die, then he was lying, if they did die, then how did they procreate? I mean this could be explained by more spiritual new age teachings but it does not make sense the way bible priests are currently trying to explain it.
I'll say this straight out: what I've been able to decipher about this incident differs from any conventional teaching in any church in the land. So how do I personally come to grips with that? Well, if there's anything I take as an article of faith, it's that God wants us to know the truth. I think I've found it, and to reject it is to reject God. But everyone's different, right? So if you want to proceed....
You may be ready for a very troublesome truth about the Bible, which would alter the context of many of the questions you ask (which are all very good, btw). The word translated as "God" in the Old Testament is "elohim".
You can research this word yourself, and I did and you should, but in short there's a huge problem with it. The "-im" suffix in Hebrew indicates plural. That is, it can't possibly be "God" but is at best "gods". At this point I should interject that even "gods" is not a good translation. Just leave "elohim" as "elohim" until you get a handle on exactly who these Elohim were. (I use biblehub.com and on certain screens if you hover over a word it shows you the original language.)
Conventional Biblical scholars wave their hands around and come up with all manner of rationalizations but I don't buy any of it for a second. If you're into conspiracy, then maybe you would agree with me (and others) that this is a deliberate mistranslation, propagated across many centuries.
I've given you a lot to take in, but I have found that almost all people reject the truth because they are uncomfortable with its implications, they find it too disturbing to their worldview. That's their right and is yours as well. I'll tell you anything you want to know, but you have to decide whether you really want to know it.
Here's an interpretation I bet you didn't see coming: the story of the Garden of Eden Incident is basically true, but is about 50,000 years old and was poorly understood at the time. Thus, it has become a bit distorted and somewhat metaphorical. "God" and the "serpent" in the story are actually aliens, and the story involves a couple of humans gaining consciousness.
Of course, all that sounds like a lot of malarkey, but I'll give you a couple of points to research to indicate the story is not just some fairy tale someone made up one day.
First, do you know where the name "Eden" comes from? In Sumerian, "e" means "house, home, or temple", and "din" means "pure or bright". When referring to a person, "din" is often translated as "righteous". The Sumerians called their deities "dingir". So "e-din" would be "the home of the righteous" or even "the home of the gods".
Second, were you aware there were two stages of "modern humans"? There were "anatomically modern humans" that, with a shave and a haircut and a 3-piece suit would pass unnoticed on the subway. They were around for 200,000 years but they acted basically just like animals (no culture, monkey-level tools, etc.). Then suddenly and for no apparent reason about 50,000 years ago, they became "behaviorally modern". They started developing very quickly with all kinds of tools and tech. Quite curious, no?
The point is, IMHO there's quite a bit to understand clearly about the story until you get to some of the finer points.
That is a diff can of worms, maybe we are not being told the truth about the early modern humans? However I have long been confused why eating of the fruit of knowledge would be a bad thing, so we were supposed to be dumb? Also kids learn about the concept of nakedness from their parent as the grow, it seems to be cultural on the one hand, but then on the flip side, it's nearly universal in one form or another so that's a bit weird too. You can see in some tribes where it's very hot, they wear close to nothing and nakedness is not as big a deal but that seems to be the exception to the rule.
As I mentioned, I believe the story is 50K years old, so we we must be as precise as possible when reading it if we hope to extract what actually happened so very long ago.
Note that they didn't eat the fruit of the "tree of knowledge" (as in facts and figures or what have you), they ate of the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Big difference, yes?
And what is "the knowledge of good and evil"? Well, a clue is that animals and children under a certain age are not generally expected to know the difference between good and evil. Only older children and adults are held responsible for knowing the difference and acting accordingly. So what do they have that animals and small children do not?
As you bring up, the other clue is nakedness. But is that precisely the issue? The story is probably slightly metaphorical or distorted here. Is this a way of saying that Adam and Eve first felt shame or guilt, where they did not before? Can one feel shame or guilt without a moral sense?
Also important in deciphering this event is that God expressed apprehension that, "their eyes will be opened and they will become as the gods". What happens right before you first open your eyes in the morning?
A couple of final but crucial points, virtually always missed. God never says knowledge (of anything) is bad. Rather, he forbids them to eat the fruit and tells them they will die if they do so. Do they die? And does the nachash tempt Eve, or does he simply tell her that she will not die? Was that a lie?
As I hope you can see, the story is nearly universally misread, and I would point to that as the reason for so much controversy and misunderstanding.
Ok still confused, why would it be bad to have a moral sense? Were we meant to be amoral? Is it bad that our eyes would be opened? If this is God, would he not know that the serpent would tempt us and that we'd eat? Was this a trap for us to screw up? And if they didn't die, then he was lying, if they did die, then how did they procreate? I mean this could be explained by more spiritual new age teachings but it does not make sense the way bible priests are currently trying to explain it.
I'll say this straight out: what I've been able to decipher about this incident differs from any conventional teaching in any church in the land. So how do I personally come to grips with that? Well, if there's anything I take as an article of faith, it's that God wants us to know the truth. I think I've found it, and to reject it is to reject God. But everyone's different, right? So if you want to proceed....
You may be ready for a very troublesome truth about the Bible, which would alter the context of many of the questions you ask (which are all very good, btw). The word translated as "God" in the Old Testament is "elohim".
You can research this word yourself, and I did and you should, but in short there's a huge problem with it. The "-im" suffix in Hebrew indicates plural. That is, it can't possibly be "God" but is at best "gods". At this point I should interject that even "gods" is not a good translation. Just leave "elohim" as "elohim" until you get a handle on exactly who these Elohim were. (I use biblehub.com and on certain screens if you hover over a word it shows you the original language.)
Conventional Biblical scholars wave their hands around and come up with all manner of rationalizations but I don't buy any of it for a second. If you're into conspiracy, then maybe you would agree with me (and others) that this is a deliberate mistranslation, propagated across many centuries.
I've given you a lot to take in, but I have found that almost all people reject the truth because they are uncomfortable with its implications, they find it too disturbing to their worldview. That's their right and is yours as well. I'll tell you anything you want to know, but you have to decide whether you really want to know it.
HMU when and if you're ready for more. Good luck!