The fruit eaten was of knowledge of good and evil, thus introducing mankind into knowing what was right and wrong. Again at any poitn because of free will either one of them could have said no.

Any God worthy of the name would not be so insecure about himself that he would have to create beings in his image for the purpose of worshiping him.

In actuality, wouldn't Satan be the hero? After all, if Satan hadn't convinced Eve to eat the apple, we would have never been created, right?

I also think there's some merit to Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou's theory that the garden actually represented an existing garden on earth - a man-made garden built by a middle-eastern king to house God (or a temple, perhaps the very temple of Solomon) and that the sin of king Adam was that his ego and pride got the better of him and began to think that he was God (which might explain what God meant when he said Adam had become like one of them).

And in doing so, all the laws of the prophets are satisfied." For the believer, one is now free from living in ACCORDANCE with the Law, as we now live under God's grace.

All of the problems with religion start off with Genesis. Get that one right and everything is different. Each of the events depicted are really great points for life and going forward but each point has a bad conclusion.
The chastising for challenging obviously false information was backwards. It should have been rewarded.
The claiming that women were for the purpose of being subservient to man was wrong. The message was obviously that he respected and feared her enough to go against what he was taught.

The question remains, “Who was God talking to” when he said, “US”

I think the story of Abraham willing to sacrifice his son is probably one of the worst stories in the bible. Think how much better it would have been if Abraham had refused and God had rewarded him for making the moral choice. Abraham should have reasoned that no moral god would give such a horrible command and refused point blank, and God should have then congratulated Abraham for seeing through the bluff. The story, as it stands, makes obedience to God the greatest possible virtue (in other words, blind obedience trumps morality).

They became separated from God... spiritual death.... and physical death.
So rather than enjoy life in communion with God, they were kicked out to find their own way
I suppose, Aires, that your mom may have said "Don't touch the hot stove." Did you listen, or learn your own way

As you have proven yourself capable... an enlightened person ought to be able to hold several opposing ideas in his/her head without ex/imploding.

N'est pas?

It is. Oral tradition would make a lot more sense for why it’s so poorly structured. That is one of the supports for the New Testament. The Gospels were written within a time period where some people would have still been alive to have challenged the validity. Creating a church based on the testimony of people that never occurred when there were still witnesses would have been easily challenged and broken apart..

Even modern societies have their myths, formed in far less time than the gospels and still widely popular (e.g., George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Elvis sightings, Einstein prodigy stories).

This means the books of the NT were written between only 30 to 70 years after Jesus' death. This is important because historians have determined this is not enough time for myths and legends to develop. It means the books of the NT were written either by eyewitnesses or by people like Luke who carefully reported eyewitness testimonies. Furthermore, this was done in the presence of other eyewitnesses who could correct them on the accuracy of their accounts. Second, we must understand the true nature of the oral tradition. This was far from the unreliable telephone game. In fact, as you know, the purpose of the game is to have fun so you have a lot of incentive to distort the message you received and pass that distortion on to the next person.

In the ancient world, however, passing information on by word of mouth was far from a game. Memorization was a major means of education. It had to be. An education that included reading and writing was only available to the wealthy minority. But that doesn't mean those without formal educations were not intelligent and informed. The Jews would memorize whole books of the OT just by listening to it being read to them. They were taught to memorize everything they heard from their teachers. They were taught to memorize it word for word and then check it for accuracy. In a world where few people could be taught to read or write, accurate memorization was important and strictly enforced.

Yeah I get it. There are anecdotal urban legends throughout history. But none of them became the basis of going against the authority of the time and turning against the established religion. The established Churches of the time were not exactly all cool with that. It's not evidence. It's just a place for a point.

Memory was important. They were far from stupid backwoods ignorant hicks. It isn't evidence. It is a place for a point.

However, that doesn't discount its existence and that it was a collection of what was claimed to be testimony and not fables and that’s where it’s still at.

Oh... however, your point about Mormons, scientology and all the modern ones... they also came from a more tolerant place and were not challenging the current ruling government. So, it’s a bit difficult to compare.

That feeling inside.....may be gas!
Once again, the feelings of a greater presence have been replicated by stimulating parts of the brain electrically and also through drugs. It also happens with mental health disorders.
So it really is explainable, any other ways you "know" that cant be replicated with science/nature?