[part 2]

what do the jews have to say about the adam and eve stuff.. that should be in there cause it's like the old testament, right

You're absolutely right to make that connection. The story of Adam and Eve is found in the Book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament.

Jewish tradition has a rich and complex perspective on the story of Adam and Eve, which differs in some significant ways from common Christian and Islamic interpretations.

Here are some of the key points about the Jewish view:

No "Original Sin": This is the most crucial difference. Jewish theology does not contain the concept of "original sin," where all of humanity inherits a sinful nature from Adam's transgression. While Adam's action is seen as a mistake that brought negative consequences into the world (such as death and the need for work), it does not condemn all of his descendants. The focus in Judaism is on an individual's personal responsibility for their own choices and actions.

The Nature of the Sin: The "sin" of Adam and Eve is seen less as a catastrophic rebellion and more as an act of disobedience that caused a profound shift in the human condition. By eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, humanity gained moral awareness and a deeper understanding of the world, but this came at the cost of their perfect, innocent state.

The Role of the Serpent: In Jewish tradition, the serpent is a symbol of evil inclination (yetzer hara) within humanity, but it is not explicitly identified with Satan, as it is in many Christian traditions. The serpent's purpose is to tempt and test, not to bring about a "fall" from grace.

Midrashic Interpretations: The story in Genesis is relatively brief, and over the centuries, Jewish sages (rabbis) have filled in the gaps with detailed interpretations known as Midrash. These commentaries explore the deeper meanings of the text and offer a variety of perspectives. For example, some Midrashic texts suggest that the original human was a single androgynous being that was later divided into two genders. Other interpretations explore the character of Adam as a profound philosopher or a humble servant of God.

In essence, the Jewish perspective on Adam and Eve is not about a "fall from grace" that requires a divine sacrifice for redemption. Instead, it's a foundational story that explains the complexities of human nature, the origin of moral choice, and the inherent, lifelong struggle between good and evil inclinations.

i'll tell you where an "original sin," comes from.. it's when you've got the flood and the population gets rebuilt from only noah's family.. meaning incest going on.

That's an interesting and provocative idea, and it's a common line of thinking when people consider the logistics of the Genesis flood narrative. You're pointing out a logical problem: if the entire population of the world was wiped out except for Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, then the repopulation of the earth would necessarily have to involve incest.

While this is a valid observation from a purely logical and biological standpoint, it's not the theological basis for the concept of "original sin" in the traditions that believe in it.

Here's why your point, while logical, doesn't align with the theological doctrine of original sin:

Original Sin's Origin is Theological, Not Biological: The doctrine of original sin, especially as developed in Western Christianity (particularly by St. Augustine), is a theological concept tied directly to Adam's sin, not Noah's family. The "sin" is the act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden, which is believed to have corrupted human nature itself. This corrupted nature, in the Christian view, is then passed down to all of Adam's descendants, making them prone to sin and in need of salvation. The focus is on the moral and spiritual inheritance from Adam, not the biological consequences of incest.

The Flood Narrative and Incest: Within the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the story of Noah's Flood is not used to explain the origin of sin. Instead, it is seen as a story of God's judgment on a wicked world and his covenant with Noah to start anew. The issue of incest is not addressed in the biblical or Quranic texts, and it is a question of logistics that theologians and scholars have handled in various ways, often by simply not dwelling on the details of how the population grew. Jewish law, for example, strictly prohibits incest, but acknowledges that such relationships must have occurred in the earliest generations to fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply."

The "Original Sin" of Humanity: In traditions that believe in "original sin," it's a condition, not a specific act of incest. The "original sin" is the moral rebellion against God's command in the Garden of Eden. The consequences of that rebellion—a broken relationship with God, suffering, and death—are what are believed to be inherited by all humans.

So, while your thought process is a compelling way to look at the flood story from a biological and societal perspective, it's a separate issue from the theological doctrine of original sin, which is rooted in the story of Adam and the "fall of man."

what was the original sin then.. when eve ate the apple?

In Christian theology, "original sin" is a complex and central concept, but it's not simply the act of Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

The "original sin" is more accurately described as the condition or state of sinfulness that Christians believe all humans are born into. This state is a direct result of the first, or "originating," sin committed by Adam and Eve.

Here's the breakdown of that originating sin:

The Act: The specific act was Adam and Eve's disobedience to a direct command from God. God had told them not to eat from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The fruit is popularly called an "apple," but the Bible never specifies the type of fruit.

The Significance: The act of eating the fruit was not a trivial mistake. It represented a desire for humanity to gain knowledge and autonomy that was reserved for God. They chose to define good and evil for themselves rather than obeying God's will. This was an act of pride and rebellion.

The "Original Sin" vs. "The Originating Sin": This is a key distinction. The originating sin was Adam and Eve's specific act of disobedience. The original sin is the inherited consequence of that act for all of humanity—a state of being spiritually separated from God, having a corrupted nature, and being prone to sin.

Adam's Role: While Eve ate the fruit first, the Bible, particularly in the writings of the Apostle Paul, places the blame for the transmission of original sin on Adam. The reasoning is that Adam was the one who received the direct command from God before Eve was created, and he was the head of humanity. His failure to obey is seen as the representative "fall" of the entire human race.

So, in summary, Eve's act of eating the fruit was part of the "originating sin," but the full theological concept of "original sin" is the inherited condition of sinfulness that, according to this doctrine, all of humanity received from Adam's disobedience.

how come adam is taking the bad rap when it's eve who ate the apple

That's a very common question, and it gets to a key point in Christian theology. You're right that Eve was the one who was tempted by the serpent and ate the fruit first. However, Christian tradition and, specifically, the Apostle Paul's writings in the New Testament, place the ultimate responsibility for the "original sin" on Adam.

The main reasons for this are theological and are rooted in the concept of headship or federal headship.

Here's the breakdown:

Adam as the "Head" of Humanity: In this view, Adam was not just an individual; he was the representative, or "head," of the entire human race. When God gave the command not to eat from the tree, He gave it to Adam before Eve was even created. Therefore, Adam was seen as having the ultimate responsibility to obey God and protect the Garden and his family from the serpent's temptation.

Adam's Deliberate Act: The biblical account says that Eve was "deceived" by the serpent. Adam, however, was with her, and in his case, the act is often interpreted as a more deliberate act of rebellion. He was not deceived; he chose to listen to his wife rather than to God's direct command. This is why his disobedience is seen as the "official" act that brought sin into the world.

The Parallel with Christ: The Apostle Paul makes a direct comparison between Adam and Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Romans (Romans 5:12-21), he writes, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin..." He then goes on to say that "by the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." In this theological parallel, Adam is the "first Adam" who brings death, and Christ is the "second Adam" who brings life. For the parallel to work, both the problem and the solution must come through a single representative "man."

So, while Eve's role was crucial and she was the first to act, the theological doctrine of original sin, as it was developed, attributes the guilt and the consequences to Adam because he was considered the covenantal head and representative of all humanity. His disobedience, therefore, had a more far-reaching effect than Eve's.

weren't they already eating apples though before that?

That's an excellent point. You're getting to the heart of the distinction between eating something and eating something that is forbidden.

In the biblical account, Adam and Eve were indeed eating fruit before the forbidden act. God's very first command to humanity in Genesis 1:29 establishes a plant-based diet: "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." So, they had an abundance of food, including all the other fruits in the garden.

The "original sin" was not the act of eating fruit in general. It was the specific act of disobedience—choosing to eat from the one tree that God had explicitly forbidden. This tree was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Think of it this way: a parent might tell a child, "You can have any cookie from the cookie jar, but you are not allowed to touch the one on the top shelf." The child's disobedience is not in eating a cookie, but in violating the parent's specific command.

The sin wasn't about the type of food, but about the act of rebellion against God's clear authority and command.

oh so he said don't eat from that one tree but they could have apples from other trees?

That's an excellent question that gets to the heart of the story. You've hit on a common misconception.

The simple answer is yes, they could have eaten other fruit from other trees, but the fruit they ate from the forbidden tree was very likely not an apple.

Here's the breakdown:

The Apple is a Later Tradition: The Bible, in the book of Genesis, never specifies what kind of fruit it was. It just refers to it as the "fruit of the tree." The popular idea of it being an apple came much later, likely due to a wordplay in Latin. The Latin word for apple is malum, which is very similar to the Latin word for evil, malus. This led to artists and translators associating the fruit with the concept of evil.

God's Command: The biblical text is very clear that God gave Adam and Eve free rein to eat from all the other trees in the Garden of Eden. The command was very specific: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it..." (Genesis 2:16-17).

So, the sin wasn't about eating fruit in general. It was about choosing to disobey God's one and only negative command—eating from the single tree that was off-limits. They had countless other fruits and plants to eat, but they chose to defy God's will for the sake of forbidden knowledge.