In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

The devil deceived Eve into eating what was forbidden. She then persuaded Adam to do likewise. After eating, they gained knowledge of good and evil. It is my view that God's true intentions, his omnibenevolence, is presented in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. Basically they are a moral guide to overcome the sin we all inherited from Adam and Eve. But what was Eve's situation before the bite? Did she have knowledge of good and evil? Was she pure still and acting as God meant her to act? Why is gaining knowledge of good and evil in the devil's advantage? Because she had no knowledge of the bad yet? She knew the good neither. Wasn't it a great gift then, the devil gave her with the apple? What gain had the devil to give her knowledge of the good? If Eve had no knowledge of good, how she could act good? By divine instinct? What was in it for the evil devil Satan, disguised as a luring snake? Was this, as the fallen angle, his way to take revenge on God? By letting people know what is bad? At the same time he gave knowledge of the good. Wasn't it better to give Eve knowledge of the bad only?

### Background Protestants who believe that the sin of Adam/Eve caused a fall in creation appear to believe some variation of the following : > The fall of man was caused by Adam’s sin. Sin is any human behavior, word, or thought that is contrary to the perfection of God. Because of Adam’s sin, God placed a curse upon the world, the people, the animals, the plants, and the very ground (Genesis 3:14–19). The idea of sin "entering the world" via Adam and Eve is also found in the NT: > Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned - Romans 5:12 ### Question If the sin of Adam and Eve caused the Fall of Creation and sin to enter the world, one could imagine had they not sinned the eternal fate of all humanity would hover on a knifes edge until someone else sinned. Do Christians believe there was something unique about Adam and Eve and their sin where they (and only they) could cause the fall?

According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin. However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful nature internally or a sinful tempter externally. All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?

Eating a [fruit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:3&version=NIV)\* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin? \* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.

I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred. What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?

2 Nephi 2:23 states > And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have > remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no > misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. Often, it is said that Adam and Eve *could* not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says *would*, not *could*. Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they *could* have children?

Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?

I found very good information on this site where the author logically and according to the **Catholic teaching** explains certain parts of sexual behavior. I agree and practice what is written, just in case if someone wonders if it's even possible. But I don't want to discuss whether the site or the author is correct on the subject so please avoid any comments on the authenticity of the site. There is a statement: > Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and > so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual > arousal. What is the source of this knowledge or where does the author bases this information from?

Adam was not with Eve when she ate the fruit Satan offered her. He did not hear the conversation, otherwise, God in His response would have said that Adam listened to the serpent, but God said that he listened to his wife. Gen 3:17: > And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; This opinion is the basis for my understanding of this comparison. I do not wish to discuss this aspect of the situation. I state it here merely to illustrate my understanding of Genesis 3:6 and its translation, from which my question originates. Gen 3:6: > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband **with her [?]** and he did eat. Just as Adam was not deceived, neither was Jesus deceived, Jesus did not sin. Adam was not deceived but partook to help Eve. 1 Tim 2:14: > And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to help us. The Church is referred to as a Crown of thorns to Jesus in Prov 12:4, just as a wife is a crown to her husband: > A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. The Bride of Christ is Jesus's "Crown" as I complete the comparison from John 19:5: > Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Another observation: What other situation could Paul have been referring to when he referred to the "husband" as the savior or the marriage? Ephesians 5:23 (KJV): > For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body This appears in all aspects to be accurate. Showing unnecessary deference to Eve/woman-kind by suggesting that Adam was "with her" at that time is merely an attempt to allude to a shared sense of guilt and does not justify distorting scripture, in my opinion. **Hence my question**: Did Adam join Eve in disobedience to save her?

What was God’s role in the Fall (if He had one)? I’m learning about the Calvinist (or perhaps hyper-Calvinist) view of Pre-determinism, and respectfully, it causes me great concern. Perhaps I’m concerned because I misunderstand Pre-determinism altogether. However, if I understand it correctly (which I probably don’t; hence why I’m asking), wouldn’t the Pre-determinist’s natural conclusion of God’s involvement in the Fall be that, because God has willed all events to happen He Himself is responsible for their occurrence? Would the line of reasoning be something like this: 1. Results of events have been determined (or willed) from eternity past. 2. The rebellion (or fall) of spiritual and physical beings were events. 3. Therefore, God determined (or worse, willed) the rebellion of spiritual and physical beings.

Inspired by this answer to a previous question , in which the answerer stated: >"For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall." Supported by quoting from 2 Nephi 2:22-23: >And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created... > >And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. This leads me to ask how could this be true, given that God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." {Genesis 1:28 } It would *seem* that this is a clear contradiction between the *Book of Mormon* and the *Bible*. How does the LDS church address this apparently-blatant contradiction?

I want to ask why would God create such concept as attractiveness if He does not look at someone’s looks? 1 Samuel 16:7 ”for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” Study after study shows that there is objective beauty which is symmetry and anything that has symmetry is considered pretty or more prettier than anything else. Also there are genes that are better and stronger and people with such genes tend to look pretty (symmetrical), think more positive, be very healthy and accomplish a lot of things. Weaker genes give the opposite and someone with such genes struggles. It seems like before the Fall people were very symmetrical and had stronger genes but after the Fall the degradation happened. Also Solomon’s song is clear that people are designed to be attracted also to looks. I just feel somewhat down because if God does not care about looks then why did He bother to do objective attraction like symmetry, better genes etc. I always thought that all the features that we have that are considered unattractive were just made that way by us because after the Fall we choose what is pretty and what is not and if we did not Fall we would not care. But studies show something completely different and we are creatures attracted to symmetry which gives pretty features and in turn good genes because symmetry comes from them. Children are the best example, they tend to go to prettier symmetrical things, animals and people. What do you think? Clarifying, I know that God does not look at our looks when it comes to salvation but still, He created people to find themselves attractive and He shows beauty in symmetry and proportions.

In Augustine's four stages of the Christian life, is the Reborn Man in the same state as the Pre-Fall Man? In which state was Christ the man while on earth? [Editor's note: OP refers to the 4 stages mentioned in Augustine's [*Enchiridion*, Ch. 118](https://biblehub.com/library/augustine/the_enchiridion/chapter_118_the_four_stages_of.htm) . [From OP's comment:] The first question is on what Augustine really meant, because both have the same able to sin and able to not sin. The second is an application of the fourfold state. My information and knowledge is based on [this]( http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-fold.html) .

We know that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel and their 600 (I forgot the exact number) after Heaven was taken from them for consuming the fruit. But if hypothetically, if they hadn't sinned, would they give birth to new humans in Eden? God says **before** "the fall" that He blessed man to be "fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". However from what I understand Adam and Eve didn't know what nakedness is, they seem to be so innocent that they wouldn't even know how to "multiply" before eating the fruit, and indeed they didn't had babies in Eden. It seems to me that initially God didn't want billions of humans, just two. Some even propose the theory that the fruit is a metaphor, a symbol for the sexual pleasure of Adam and Eve. I know some modern literature (not in English, not religious related) that uses the wording "girls that didn't yet tasted the sweetness of the fruit of sin" to describe a virgin woman. Maybe before the fall, God designed mammals with a non-sexual multiplication, similar to the idea that God designed all creatures to eat plants, but after the fall he permitted meat-eating in humans and animals.

Was the sin of Adam and Eve caused by partial ignorance? Before the fall they were ignorant about the shame of nakedness.

For scoping purposes, let's assume that [Divine Command Theory](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/) is false. This means that explanations of the form *"X is evil because God said so"* would be out of scope. Having clarified that, if we bring our attention to the first sin committed by humanity, the eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam & Eve, how can we sufficiently explain that this act was "evil", "wrong" or "sinful" according to a theory of ethics consistent with Christian theism but different from DCT? God commanded Adam & Eve not to eat nor touch the fruit from a specific tree. What made breaking this commandment "evil", "wrong" or "sinful", if we rule out Divine Command Theory from the pool of candidate explanations? Please make the theory of ethics you are coming from explicit in your answer. Thanks.

This answer to a question asking about the relationship between LDS and Catholicism contains the following as one of 3 main doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Catholicism: > belief that the fall of humanity in Eden was a positive event because it made mortal life possible (as opposed to the Catholic and Protestant view that humanity is tainted with original sin that requires Christ’s redemption) According to LDS why would God send his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to condemn sin in the flesh if the entrance of sin into the flesh was a positive event making mortality possible? The implication seems to be that God actually wanted Adam to sin and then He condemns that which He positively willed to occur.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote ( https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng) : > In contrast to most readers of the Bible, we believe that Adam and Eve both should be commended for what they did to bring about the Fall. The Genesis account clearly shows God commanding the man not to eat of the fruit of one particular tree and assigning consequences for disobedience to this singular command: > And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 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: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 2:16-17 Later, when Adam and Eve are interrogated by God regarding their violation of God's command, God does not commend them in any way but rather pronounces curses: > Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. - Genesis 3:16-19 There is no biblical passage which commends Adam and Eve for disobeying the command of God. In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul indicates that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, thus placing responsibility for the Fall upon the man but there is no commendation in Paul's theology of the Fall. Additionally, there is no biblical passage which commends any disobedience of God anywhere, ever. How can Joseph Fielding Smith's statement of commendation for Adam's disobedience be reconciled with the overwhelming testimony of the Bible pronouncing condemnation and not commendation for disobeying God?

I recall somewhere in Wayne Grudem's *Systematic Theology* he mentions that it is possible that animals died before the fall (I don't recall the exact page or quote but it's not directly relevant to my question; I believe it was in the discussion of evolution). Did any early church writers have anything to say on this topic? Just to be specific let's say "early" means up to and including Augustine.