Shooting from the hip here. People have always had a fascination with origin stories. Almost every civilization has had them and the run the gamut from colorful and completely fantastical to slightly more reasonable and possibly somewhat grounded in actual history. People put a lot of thought and energy behind where we come from and even today we're preoccupied with the question, from astronomers trying to discover the origins of the universe as a whole to anthropologists trying to piece together the history or early man to modern historians analyzing the births of nations, cultural movements, and ideas. I think there is a very good argument for saying that knowing where we come from helps us understand where we are and where we might go from here. While I personally don't spend too much time thinking about these things, I find that when others are discussing discoveries and ideas I often become an eager listener. The Bible itself, especially The Old Testament, can be hard to study. It is dense, where a single sentence can sometimes have paragraphs of significance, and often times it expects the reader to have a cultural knowledge which many people no longer have, being millenia removed from the time the books were written. As a result, I've often found it easier to read a small section of The Bible and then search out essays on what I've just read to fill me in on many of the gaps. This isn't a criticism on The Bible, I'm just saying for the sake of anyone reading this that if you find reading it a challenge, you are nowhere near alone. So to Adam and Eve in particular, I think as far as origin stories go, it's a bit of a downer. I appreciate the fact that it tries to describe the possible origins of self awareness and suffering. Times are hard now. I can't imagine how hard they were way back when. In their day to day lives there was probably a lot of frustration and suffering to go around and naturally, when that happens, people look to someone or something to blame. I think doing so made their situation a bit more bearable. Seeing as how this story came from a patriarchal society, it's no wonder in one perspective Eve receives that blame. Seeing as how back then people felt like much of their lives rested on outside sources beyond their control, it's no wonder God and The Serpent received some of the blame. Adam too, in this story, probably deserves some blame as well. I sometimes wonder if the reason there's plenty of blame to go around is by design, do people can feel either relived that their position in life is not their fault or that the blame is somewhat theirs in actuality, and by accepting that, they become empowered to try and do better. While I personally don't believe in original sin, I can understand how it can be an effective theological motivator. As to jadedog's pastor's comment on knowing God, I think that while we're created in God's image, I think we often try to attribute our own understanding of the world around us to Him, thereby making Him more relatable. I think metaphorically speaking, trying to understand God in entirety would be like trying to stand on the surface of the sun and see the whole thing. For one, it's impossible by sheer magnitude alone. For two, the effort alone would burn us up. As an aside, I get frustrated when people talk about Adam and Eve and gloss over the part where God gave Adam dominion over all living things, great and small. It's right there, in the Bible, in the beginning pages before things get drawn our and hard to follow. The earth is ours and we need to take care of it. How do people ignore that?
Re: dominion over all things great and small - it's interesting that this seems clearly to be how this line ought to be interpreted now, but that it has been read in the opposite way for much of history. The idea of Stewardship in the context of Christianity is relatively new, and this same line was often interpreted as "all this splendor is made for us to use as we please". Also, interesting to see the idea of Adam as "master" (Gen 1:26) of all living things and the reading that Eve becomes just one more thing to master in the Fall.
I know original words and translations mean a lot, so I'm kind of curious as to what the original text meant. Even if they meant "dominion" as a king, ruler type concept (which if we really wanted to dig into this we could bring in the whole argument of Divine Right of Kings), a good ruler has to be responsible and compassionate. The logic strikes me as frustratingly infantile and tenuous and I bet you my dinner that a lot of people in authority, both in official government and church capacity as philisophical thinkers, knew better. They just wanted easy outs to justify crummy behavior. The entire New Testament was almost like hitting a theological reset button, where the new word of the day, as revealed by God, is "compassion." If your theological arguments don't hold up to the ideals of that virtue, there's a good chance they need to strongly be reevaluated.