Alma begins with the place where Antionah thinks he has found a contradiction, in the story of Adam. Alma suggests that he was about to explain this, and now launches into a detailed discussion of the spiritual implications of the Garden of Eden.
The first point Alma makes is that the entire world became "lost and fallen" by reason of the Fall. This would be a point on which Antionah would likely agree. The second point deals directly with the problem of Adam's death and the flaming sword. The first part of this is that Alma must show that Adam was required to die. He does this by citing the same text as did Antionah, and showing that God had decreed that Adam should die. Thus it is God who dictated that Adam's actions would result in death. This death was inevitable upon the partaking of the fruit.
Understanding the Symbols of the Trees in the Garden
The problem of the Garden of Eden is more than the first story in the Bible. It is the foundation of the way we understand the order of the world, and so it is important to understand what that story means for us. For many, the idea that God made the Garden, and made it such a beautiful place, is an indication that God intended that we always remain there. In such an interpretation, mankind must not only be a severe disappointment to the God who created us, but we must be surprising characters indeed to have so completely undermined God's great plan with the very first pair of us He placed on earth.
To understand better what the intent of the Garden was, we need to read the text not just as a story, but as a symbolic story. This is not to say that we must assume this is just a story. It is rather to suggest that the way the story is constructed is designed to present symbols that show us the meaning above and beyond the simply language that presents the sequence of events.
We begin with the text:
Genesis 2:8-9
8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
When Eden is created, it is as Good a place as you might expect God to make it. Nevertheless, the Goodness of the Garden really gets very little discussion. The next several verses simply define the lay of the land.
Genesis 2:10-14
10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
For modern man, these verses hold little importance. They do not seem to advance the crucial story of the Garden. For the ancient world, however, they were a direct tie between their world and the primordial world described in Genesis. These verses functioned to place the story in a real place, although not in real time. This was to be a real story, not a pretend one. This does not mean that this was the precise location of the Garden, but rather that it symbolically existed in real space. It was a real place for the ancient reader, even if it happened in a not-real time.
The next set of verses set up the tension of the story:
Genesis 2:15-17
15. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17. 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
In verse 9, when the Garden was formed, there were two prominent trees, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet in these verses, only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is mentioned. In spite of the lack of an explicit presence, the Tree of Life is implicit, and helps to set the contradictions which are the crux of the story.
The first complementary dichotomy is that of Good and Evil, represented by the Tree of Knowledge. The second is that of Life and Death, represented by the Tree of Life, and the penalty of death pronounced upon those who partook of the Tree of Knowledge. The whole impact of the story of the Garden of Eden is condensed into the tension between the two symbolic trees, and that tension involves two sets of polar opposites. By implication of the Goodness of the Garden, Life and Good have been set as the standard, and should prevail, unless man partakes of the Tree of Knowledge.
The symbolic tension between the two Trees is even greater when we ask more questions about it. If there was a Tree of Life, was there a Tree of Death? Yes and no. No, there was no tree so named, but clearly the Tree of Knowledge was for Adam and Eve the Tree of Death, for that was the penalty for eating the fruit thereof. If there was a Tree of Knowledge, was there also a Tree of Ignorance? While not explicitly a tree, nevertheless the Knowledge contrasts with the naive ignorance which was the natural state of Adam and Eve.
Symbolically, the structure of the Garden story provides a series of polar opposites, and Adam and Eve are placed in a situation where their actions will select one of the sets. By their obedience to the commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they "choose" Life and Ignorance. By partaking, they "choose" Death and Knowledge. The story of the Garden is not simply the story of a Fall, it is the story of a choice.
The instrument of the choice is the serpent:
Genesis 3:1-7
1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5. for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
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.
7. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
As is always the case with Satan, there is half-truth in all he says. He truthfully tells Adam and Eve that their eyes will be opened, and that, as the gods, they will know Good from Evil. That was indeed the effect of eating the fruit. Their eyes were opened. The only hint we have at their subsequent ability to tell Good from Evil was that they noticed their nakedness and sewed fig leaves. It must be presumed that in the context in which this tale was told to ancient Israel, the nakedness was clearly on the "evil" side of the equation, since it is structurally used to prove that point in this story.
What of Satan's assertion that they "shall not surely die" (Genesis 3:4)? Clearly this is in direct contradiction to God's pronouncement of penalty of death, a penalty so great that it could be imposed if Adam or Eve even touched the fruit (Genesis 3:3). Again, it is bits and pieces of truth. Neither Adam nor Eve died immediately, so Satan was right, or at least apparently right. Mortality was imposed upon Adam and Eve at that point, however, and so God's word was fulfilled. Depending on which time point is selected, both statements were correct.