The two creation stories are fundamental to Christian faith because they mark the beginning of humanity. Whether we believe them or not, these stories have been passed down orally and chosen to be recorded in the Bible. Upon closer examination of these texts, we have come to an understanding that God created the heavens and the earth specifically for humanity.
In the first story, for example, God separates light and darkness on the first day, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night." Yet He appears to do so again on the fourth day through the creation of the sun, moon and stars. He says, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night" (Genesis 1.14). Why do we see this repetition?
It is also interesting that with the creation of day and night came these rational concepts known as time and seasons. These were established before the creation of man. Can we then say that God had intended for everything to be catered to humanity?
Another example that points to a human-centric perspective is God's agency in the creation of the world. While the animals and plants are brought forth from the earth (Genesis 1.24), humanity was created directly by God in the "divine image"(Genesis 1.27).
The second story also contains instances of God's intent for the earth as created for humanity. Man was created first by God, who "blew into his nostrils the breath of " (Genesis 2.7). After creating man in His image, He then created the earth with all of the animals and plants to be used for man.
Though the two versions recount creation in different ways, they fundamentally contain the same theme- that God created the universe for humanity. Given this, how then can we understand the two stories as one interpretation of our beginning? And what is the reason behind having both stories included in the Bible? Please shed some light on this topic? :)
This blog was posted by Anika Aquino, Meagan Koeth, and Hannah Welz.
I always found it curious that the Bible gives us two accounts of how we began. I think that both stories hold significance because each presents a different mythological truth as they emphasize different elements. For example, in the second account, woman is actually made of man’s rib; whereas in the first account, man and woman seem to be created at the same time and in the same way. Although not literally true, it is promising to contemplate what exactly this could mean about human nature and the nature of male and female.
ReplyDeleteBoth accounts of creation seem to designate humanity as the steward for all of creation. That can be a noble or dangerous designation depending on the way humanity serves. When humanity is prudent and temperate, the earth and the living things on it are not exploited. However, I think too often we see humanity not fulfilling that obligation by being wasteful. On the other hand, maybe the centrality of humanity is overemphasized. We live in a universe with a possibly infinite number of galaxies. Inside just one of the galaxies, on a solar system revolving around one of the billions of stars in that galaxy, spins a small planet called earth. I do think it is important that humanity has care of creation as its responsibility; I just value perspective on the matter.
I like your comment, Lucy, and would like to add that it is interesting that "God created [human beings] in his image... male and female he created them (Gen 1:27). This suggests that God is, in a sense, both male and female. Perhaps the union between a man and woman mentioned in the second creation story reflects the union of God with Godself as the fulness of being is completely united somehow. "and the two of them become one body"
Delete(Gen 2:24) could also reflect God's triune nature as a union of the three persons.
The first creation story gives an overview of the world that God created while the other focuses its description on the beginning of life in the world (animals, vegetation, and humans). While the first story goes day by day, the second focuses on the development of humans from our creation. The second story also explains the human importance along with a hierarchy of sorts, with humans falling second only to God, in His world. Together the variation of the two stories gives us a more complete understanding of what God created on Earth. It also gives humans an understanding of their place in this world like Lucy said. She made several great points on humans being the “stewards of all creation”. I do not know why both stories were put in the Bible, though. Others might be able to comment on that part.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the two creation stories, as we specified in class, was that the first creation story showed the power and authority of a more distant creator while the second story zoomed in on God's establishment of man and woman and how this creation took place in a relational matter, where we see more of the personal qualities of God. As a whole, these two stories seem to focus more on the identity of God than the identity of man as center of the universe - they decribe how God creates, how God establishes. Together the stories come to an interesting conclusion which might sound vague but should be celebrated in the light of what karen armstrong declared - that God cannot be limited or reduced in any way if we are to understand Him. Not only was God establishing the light and dark, he was also letting the earth teem forth in abundance, a point I believe which gives a certain independance and free will of creation. Additionally, however, this distant creating God also worked with man as he was naming the animals and personally reached down, so close that He could even take a rib out of man directly, and made woman. This contrast of distant and personal is deeper to understand, I believe, than the straightforward but vague conclusion of man as center of the universe.
ReplyDeleteThese two creation stories shed light on the question of "What is our purpose in this world?" I agree and would say that creation is human-centered and God make everything for humanity. But this begs the question "why?" If God is truly all powerful, all good, all true, all loving, what does he need humanity for? The fact that we are here, though, shows the depths of God's love for us. God doesn't need us, but we are indeed here. Therefore, He brought us into existence out of complete love for us. He wishes to share His life with us. Ultimately though, our creation is not for our own glory, but for His. God is most glorified when humanity is lived fully, according to human nature to love and be virtuous. I think this relates to our discussion on the image of God. Humans are made in the image and likeness of God, which is a special designation not given to birds, fish, etc. To be made in His image means we have a special role in this world which is to love and share our life and have a relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteI really like this take on the creation stories. To be made in the image and likeness of God says more about God than about humanity, the way you put it. Your explanation directs attention away from humans and towards God, and thus the start of many religious practices
DeleteI believe that both creation stories were included in the Bible in order to provide the readers with not only a sequence of events as to how the Earth was created, but also to expound on the creation of humanity specifically. The first creation story doesn't seem to me like it was meant as a narrative but rather as an explanation as to what order everything in the world was created. The second creation story is more for narration than for providing a sequence of events because it includes somewhat of a plot. Of all of the days of creation, the sixth was the most important to highlight in the Bible because it was humanity who would read the Bible and, therefore, its story was given in more specific detail. Both are important, but each story serves a different purpose, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Rhodes comment I was reminded immediately of a quote by St. Irenaeus of Lyon: "The glory of God is man fully alive, and the life of man is the vision of God." So, as Rhodes said, when we truly live, as God intended, we glorify not ourselves, but rather Him. And what is more, as seen in both creation accounts with man being the focus of creation, God's vision is the life of man. Although we must recognize our own bias as humans--we would naturally deem ourselves to be the pinnacle of creation--we must also realize that God indeed did have a specific place for us in creation, and because of that, as Lucy alluded to, we have a responsibility to this world and to all God's creation.
ReplyDeleteI think both creation stories are important because they show the different qualities of God and they each have a different style. In the first Creation account, God is seen as very powerful and is written more scientifically. The second Creation story portrays God as anthropomorphic and it is written as a story. I agree with Schultz that the purpose of these two Creation accounts is to give a more complete and comprehensive understanding of God and how He created the world.
ReplyDeleteThe two creation stories have been fundamental to the Christian faith because they portray the amount of importance that God puts on humanity. I believe that both stories, obviously taken in a mostly mythological sense, were intended to show that God created us to be above all other creations, and that all things created were gifts to humankind. God did, after all, create us in His image. In doing so, He couldn't have made us less than the rest of creation because part of Himself is in us. This Image of God, for me, is the original desire to do good, as said by Aristotle, that we inherited from God. Created in God's image, we had consciousness that allowed us to seek good. However, after the sin of Adam and Eve, we lost this consciousness and likeness to God. The only way we are able to retrieve our communion with God is through Baptism, which is the Sacrament that makes us Children of God, and therefore we have His likeness within us. After Baptism, we regain our sense of goodness and as His children desire what He desires, despite the temptations that we continue to endure since the serpent's deception of Eve.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said that "part of Himself is in us." Does this refer to our class discussion about God leaving a part of himself in human beings as an artist leaves a part of himself in his work? Or perhaps, even, that God reveals himself through his creation as an author reveals himself in his writing?
DeleteI think it's interesting to think of God's image referring to human beings' ability to desire and choose the good, especially in light of the second creation story with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Can we take the tree literally? How can humans choose the good when they don't even know the difference between good and evil? Perhaps, human beings are only lifted to the status as being made in God's image after they disobey him, for it is only then that they are able to know the good and therefore choose it.
Though the creation stories do seem to point to humanity as being the superior beings on earth and that humanity was created, as Rhodes pointed out, simply by God's love, not necessity, for us, I do not believe we should exclude animals and vegetation from beneficiaries of the creation of the earth and of God's love, and St. Basil's Hexaemaron does point this out to an extent. Time is a human creation and though the seasons do sometimes prevent us from going outside because some of us can't control being in the heat or cold, seasons really do not affect the human race (we are perhaps the most adaptive species; we live all over the earth). It is really vegetation and animals who depend on the seasonal changes to a greater extent so perhaps the sun and the moon had a greater lean towards wildlife than humanity who could (as God likely planned) create fire etc. It's just food for thought :)
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that animals are more dependent as we are more adaptive, I feel as though the seasonal changes do bring about concepts such as orbiting and the solar system. The seasons govern also what we wear (hopefully), sport seasons, etc... I see your point, but also just found it significant to the human-centric idea.
DeleteAs everyone else has commented on the differences between the two interpretations of creation, the stories contrast two differing images of God one that of the creator and the other being of that he takes part of the creation himself. I think that these two stories are written together is that with them we are able to understand the complexity, the idea of God. We can observe God in the sense of the higher being, omnipotent, but we can also see him as being a part of us. While God can be on a heavenly plane beyond our own existence and thinking, he also exists and dwells within us giving us illumination within our lives. If there was only a single account of creation, we would profile God as that one form of being given that opinion. We must think beyond our own stereotypical ideas and come up with newfound conceptions of what is God's role within creation.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the question of why there are two stories discussing the same subject of creation in Genesis, I believe that the reason is that each writer wanted to highlight something different in the creation 'myth' that he/she believed the other account neglected or under- emphasized. For instance, perhaps the writer of the first story wanted to look at the “big picture” and show how all the different parts of creation (earth, sun, stars, water, plants, animals, humans...etc) exist together in harmony and were created together with similar intent by our creator, who that writer depicts as an distant, all-powerful authority; whereas, in the second story, there is more emphasis on the difference between humans and all other parts of creation and the special roles that they have as children of God made in His image, rather than just ordinary creations. I really like Maria's point about how these stories serve, in part, to inform us of our significance to God as human beings, and I think that the second one does this more so than the first. Also, the second story presents God as more of a loving father than as the “master puppeteer” from the first story.
ReplyDeleteI think this is what Brooks was alluding to when he brought up the possibility of one single account. Although they're different stories, it's hard to imagine only having one of them, and missing out on a load of implications that reflect our faith. Wonder if it's possible to have one story that encompasses all ideas... Not that I'm trying to rewrite the Bible here ;)
DeleteI may be stating a few things that people have already said, but hopefully it still adds something to the discussion. The thing that hits me really hard about the creation story is the sense of anticipation! Indeed, every single thing that happens is in preparation for something to come later for as John says: "He was in the beginning with God." The fact that the earth was all darkness and God created light prefigures Christ's coming, while the mistake of Adam and Eve necessitate it. All of this, every minute atom of every cell of each and every animal and plant was set in place, and only then did God create man, and this preparation is the reason for the two stories. Without #1, we don't see God's preparation for humanity, yet without #2 we don't see humanity's preparation for Christ. In fact the two stories are incredible harmonious when looked at in this way.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Creation stories give us two perspectives of God: there is God who is transcendent and omnipotent, and there is God who is intimate and immanent. I love that there are two equally important ways to view God. I don't think that our faith can be complete without considering God to be both omnipotent and immanent. One thing that I find to be very interesting is that in the first Creation story, God simply creates man in His image. God says that He wants to create something more than animals, and it happens. However, in the second Creation story, God creates man froom the clay of the ground and blows into his nostrils the breath of life. He physically takes the Earth and creates man out of it. I think this highlights an important concept: as humans, we are both earthly and spiritual. We come from the earth and have a responsibilty to it, and we also come from God. Having two creation stories, therefore, is necessary to shed light on the complexity of both God and humanity.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you're in my section, you've probably heard me and Philip singing "Children of Eden" songs recently in honor of Genesis. "Children of Eden" is an AMAZING musical that is based off of Genesis. It's not perfect, but, in my opinion, it offers a beautiful interpretation of Creation and and Genesis as a whole. I was in the show in high school, and it was very influential on my faith. If any of you are interested, here is a link to the opening number, which is a really fun portrayal of the Creation stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XCdRnvTW6A
I think that the creation of light twice in the first creation story is important. Humans depend on light in all aspects of life. Furthermore, The dichotomy of light and dark is evident through so many books of the bible, from the beginning to the end. In many occurrences in the Old Testament, prophets speak of the light that will come (Isaiah) or help God's people to better times (Moses). In the end - that is the final book of the bible (which is on the cliche list so I will not mention its name)- there will be "no need for the sun or the moon" because the light will come from "the glory of God..." "and its lamp was the Lamb" (Rev 21:23). With this in mind - our knowledge of how important light is to human life, along with the relationship between light and dark throughout the history of God's people, and the account of the end of time that light will be provided by God for all eternity - it seems plausible that light is mentioned twice.
ReplyDeleteThe repetition of the creation of light in Genesis I is very interesting. However, I think there is a lot to be said about what "time" was in the creation stories. The bible specifies three days passing between the creation of Light, on the first day, and the Sun, Moon, and Stars on the Fourth. But a day, in time as we perceive it, is dictated by the rising and setting of the sun- the rotation of the earth on its axis. So with out the sun, by what measure of time did god create the universe in a day? Was it a day proper? Or did it take millennia and without measurement of time? Both are very possible.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the value of the two Genesis stories, I feel that the two combine to display all of the facets of God. Both the 'Master Puppeteer' and the 'Personal and Fallible' are parts of God. Genesis II does seem to offer a more 'human oriented' view of creation, and there is more evidence in the second story than the first that Human's are meant to have dominion of the earth. However, both are vitally important in the belief of the origin of Man as the creation of God.
And YES!!!! LAUREN GAYDOS HAS POSTED AN AMAZING SONG THAT I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD US SINGING IN THE MORNINGS :D EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH IT!!!!
The Creation stories highlight different aspects of God. The light/dark and day/night question is a good question. The light that was created is something greater than our sun, stars and moon. I love St. Augustine's view that the light could be the angels who reflect God's light (and as such are classified as "good"), while the darkness is the angels who have rejected God's light (and thus do not reflect it; notice how the darkness is not called "good"). Was the light even something that we see in the sense that we are used to, or is it something different? It could be either.
ReplyDeleteI do not like the idea of God being "fallible". If God is all-good, all-loving, and ultimately omniscient, then how could He make a mistake? I think the text is not trying to say that God made a mistake. I firmly believe that God cannot make mistakes. Instead, the text is trying to emphasize that God made man and woman for each other, as "it is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen 2:18). Instead of seeing God as making a mistake, perhaps we should ask why the man needed someone besides God, if the man had not sinned against God yet! However, I do believe that the Bible presents the two stories to demonstrate different sides of God. If we believe that God is immensely above us, no text in the world could fully contain His majesty. However, the Bible tries to not limit its presentation of God to only one viewpoint.
Furthermore, the world was created for humans, even though they came later. That would be like saying that, since earth was created before humans, it may not be for us.
And so, both of the creation stories tell one harmonious story, because precision in the details is not as important as figuring out what the Bible is trying to say about God.
I had a really great reply, but the site messed up and lost it! :(
Each of the creation myths strike me as being incredible portrayals of God's glory. The way I see it, it was God's glory that burst forth from Himself when He commanded there to be light. This light of His glory spread into all of creation and could not yet be contained in the quantities we now call day and night. However, as more of creation took form, as God raised the created realm higher and higher towards the perfection that was His plan, that light was then able to be separated and designated as day and night. This was all in preparation for and moving towards the perfection of His plan. He did not make a mistake by creating the light and then try to "ctr+Z" by creating the sun, etc., rather creation is a process and was not yet perfected.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to the next point of "at what point was creation perfected, fulfilled, completed?" My answer to that is: when He created woman. Please don't think I am saying this from some nickersinatwistsuperfeminist point of view. I think that woman was the capstone of creation because it was only after God created her that He rested from His labor. She was also what brought completion to the man's existence, because she was the embodiment of a crucial portion of himself, just as the creation of humanity as a whole is the embodiment of a crucial portion of God. God created the earth and brought it to perfection for the sake of humanity, for both the man and the woman, and gave them to care for in His name.
I love the image of God's glory as a light bursting forth from Himself. That's beautiful and truly awe-inspring.
DeleteHowever, does the woman really bring completion to the man's existence? Is he completely satisfied? She certainly adds another aspect of God to his life, or "the embodiment of a crucial portion of himself" as you put it, and there is a union between them. But is his life complete? It seems like he just started his journey through life. I mean to say that man is not fully united with his Creator yet. Man and woman do not experience union with all of God's gooness, which they desire. The man and woman are companions in their search for God as John Paul II puts it, but I don't think they are complete yet.
I agree with Cristina and how she pointed out how the first story was written in a more scientific sense. God created an Earth with all of the essentials for human survival. This story explains all the phenomena that are hard to explain without thinking of a higher power such as the sun, the seasons and animals.
ReplyDeleteThe second story however explains the intricate details of the creation of Earth. It explains the creation of certain rivers as well as the Garden of Eden. It explains in greater detail the creation of man and woman. I believe both stories were included in the Bible to give two different accounts, one of the creation of Earth and the other of the human. The first story explains the mystery of Earth and how it is conveniently shaped to man and the second story explains mankind.
Before taking this class I hadn't realized that there were two creation stories... I mean, I knew both the stories but I never realized that they contradict eachother, I thought that one happened after the other, rather than both having different accounts of the creation of people and animals. When I was reading them for this class, I was thinking about how the two different stories are a mythos answer to two different questions, the first answers the question "how was the world created" and the other answers the question "why is human nature flawed" although there is some overlap, (ie the second account has creation in it too.) It makes me think of some ancient storyteller with a group of children around him. He'd tell the first story, about the creation, and then all the kids would be like, "tell us the one about Adam and Eve" and they wouldv'e come from different sources, but would be complementary to eachother. I guess what I'm saying is that they are stories which answered people's questions, and that they're both included in the Bible because they make one complete story together.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Rhodes said about the two Creation stories revealing God's love for us. I find it to be crucial that in the very first chapters of the Bible, God's incredible love for humanity is emphasized. One could really view the Bible as a love story between God and humanity. The Creation stories emphasize the fact that God created mankind out of nothing and gave mankind everything. These stories also emphasize mankind's reliance on God. God may have given us free will, but without Him, we would never exist, nor would we have the gift of the earth and all of God's glory manifested in it. We are entirely dependent on God's creation, a fact that we often forget as men and women of the 21st century. We may be stewards of creation, but that is only because God willed us to be. This is an incredible gift which should be valued and never taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteI think that both stories contain necessary truths. As Cristina explained, the first story is more scientific and explains the actual creation of all that is around us in greater depth. The second story focuses more on God's relationship with man. The two Creation myths complement each other and that one cannot truly stand without the other. This reminds me of the two sides of the human person - the rational and the emotional. The first story takes more of a rational aspect, explaining step by step how things came into being. The second story takes more of an emotional aspect, delving into humanity's relationship to the Divine.
I agree with the rest of my classmates’ comments that there are definitely two different aspects to the creation stories. Genesis 1 is a more scientific history of the creation of the Earth and universe. However, Genesis 2 is more of a relational narration describing the relationships held between human, creatures, and animals. Although these two stories have different parameters, they both complement each other and are necessary for the holistic understanding of how the world came about as a result of God’s work. I agree with the point that in both creation stories, God caters everything towards humanity. He provides them with a sense of time, weather, and change. He also gives them animals to accompany them on the Earth. I think this introduction to God’s relation with humans sets the scene for the many tales of the Bible that will follow that illustrate the relationship that God establishes and maintains with His people.
ReplyDeleteComplementary to Rhode's comment, we were indeed created to glorify God and all in creation allows for us to embrace this call. as the pinacle of creation, the most endowed of the created, we are given dominion over the land and all that dwells upon it so that we may in turn fulfill our humaness through love and the gift of ourselves. we must, however, be temprate in our attitude toward our responsibility to creation and our authority to use the gifts God has given to us through creation. neither extreme should be embraced.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to say that all of creation was created to reveal the glory of God. In that God is the source of all goodness when he makes all the sky, the sun, the dry land, the animals, etc. and says they are good, he is manifesting his goodness in his creation. However in both creation accounts, God entrusts all of his creation to humanity. This implies to me that man is meant to glorify in the creation that God has made, and that ALL of it reflects the goodness of God, not just man. Not only is man meant to use God's creation its own purposes, but God's creation should also in some way reveal God to man. I say this to emphasize how God's creation benefits man beyond mere usage for practical purposes or successful existence.
ReplyDeleteSome food for thought: What can we take from this story? What can we take as historical fact? Only information about the nature of God?
Humanity, not man! Forbidden words!!
DeleteThough I like the reciprocal relationship you put into God's creations and humanity.
I'm not sure if we can take anything into true fact, because I feel as though the creation stories cater to the "mythos" of religion. We can state that there was faith in God many, many years ago. We can state that there were a number of instances where faith compensated for lack of reason/logic. But I'm not entirely sure if anything literal came out from this stories. Other thoughts?
*these stories
DeleteI think Sarah's comment about Genesis being a love story between humans and God is very interesting. Throughout the entire Bible, God's love is revealed through His interactions with humans, but it is never really pointed that the creation of the world is another act of love. He spent a lot of effort on creating a place that humans could live, so much effort that He even had to rest. That fact alone is incredible, that an all-powerful being like God had to rest after creating the world. The story of creation is just overflowing with God's love for humanity.
ReplyDeleteI like this! Everybody talks about the sixth day, but I haven't heard much commentary about the seventh. It really puts a lot into perspective: the idea that God actually had to rest.
DeleteI like what David said about anticipation. Everything is created for something bigger. All of creation is waiting in anticipation: waiting for man, waiting for the Messiah, waiting for Christ's resurrection. Just like the new response at mass "and with your spirit" was in anticipation of Boaz's life with Ruth who eventually was the ancestor of David of whose line Jesus is born of. This anticipation for the coming of something big echos in all of creation. I want to quote David's insight of the reason for both creation stories and how they have a different purpose, but both contain anticipation: "Without the first creation story, we don't see God's preparation for humanity, yet without the second creation story we don't see humanity's preparation for Christ."
ReplyDeleteOf the 2 stories, I agree with my peers, that the first was much more scientifically organized, in the God created the earth and all its inhabitants in what seems to be a specific order. The second story however plays into the idea of human emotion. This is how I see that both stories are necessary to our understanding of creation. The first account of creation shows the reason behind the creation of each part of the world in which we exist today and helps explain such things as light and dark and day and night and self-reproducing vegetation. Whereas the second story shows the difference between humans and all the rest of his creations. Humans clearly hold a special place in creation and thus in God's plan and that is expressed best when both creation stories are interpreted together.
ReplyDeleteI think that Scripture allows 2 different versions of Creation for the same reason that we have 4 different accounts of Christ. All are canonical, and all add to our interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI really like what Regina said earlier, how "each writer wanted to highlight something different in the creation 'myth' that he/she believed the other account neglected or under-emphasized."
I'm most interested in what sort of time lapse happened between the origin of the 2 accounts of Creation. I believe that the 1st account, which is "scientific," has been around for about as long as storytelling has been around. It was the Hebrew interpretation of how their world was made and how it works, in the same way that the Greeks interpreted their world as Apollo riding his fiery chariot across the sky. It was a way to explain the how and why of the earth. It is "mythos" in every meaning of the word.
The 2nd account, which goes much more in-depth on the relationship between God, Man, and Woman, probably originated much later than the 1st, and was likely a Hebrew theological interpretation of the relationships between God & Humanity, and Man & Woman. I also find it interesting how the writer clearly tries to make the 2nd story geographically accurate by adding in the names of the four rivers: Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, & Euphrates. This leads me to believe that the Hebrews were living in Mesopotamia when this account was written. Perhaps during the "Babylonian Exile"? It would explain why it was necessary to write a 2nd creation story (to fight Babylonian religion passive-aggressively), and why the distinctions of relationships were emphasized (wasn't the story of Esther written sometime during the Babylonian Exile? certainly would explain the distinctions made between man & woman... haha.)
These stories are both included to teach the reader the extent of humanity's dominion. That is to say, humans are entitled first and foremost to the earth as expressed by God in the first story and by man's extraction from clay in the second. Humans are thus made in God's "image". We have God's faculties except for perfection and immortality. The incident with the fruit of the tree of knowledge was the first time a human misused one of the God-given faculties. So, any misuse of the faculties would therefore be sin, and in the case of the fruit, the humans presumed that their will was above God's wisdom and command. As a result, suffering has henceforth plagued humankind. I think it fair then to assume that every step one makes out of the realm of humanity attempting to usurp God will suffer.
ReplyDelete