Who told the first lie? (page 14)

Halcon

Jeffro -And the snake was right. She ate the fruit and didn’t die. The god in the story took separate steps after its lie about the knowledge fruit was made evident.

Hehe.... keep trying jeffro

Halcon

Mustard- But it goes much deeper. "Trust" is a "reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something".

I would ask, are ALL of these traits needed for trust? Or how about any one of them? Adam knew of God's ability. The ability to create. To bring something forth into existence that wasn't there before. His wife for example. And his reaction/response to the sudden presence of his wife was positive, it was good. Couldn't Adam trust that God could do this again?

How can they rely on the "truth" of God when they don't even understand what "lies" are? What we would call someone's "character" is based on whether they believe and display "good" traits, and not "evil" ones - none of which Adam or Eve would be able to decern.

Yet the snake was very selective of his words and method. It wasn't just random gibberish. Why?

The snake asked Eve to repeat the very exact words of God, 'is it true that God said you WILL die?"

Eve responded with 'yes'. How do you explain that she understood how to respond correctly, and not be confused by what the snake asked?

Further, the snake resorted to a temptation... that they would be like God. It wasn't sufficient to leave it at 'you will not die'.

Why did the snake resort to it? Doesn't the inclusion of a temptation imply that Eve had sufficient intelligence and mental capacity to require a sleight of hand? Otherwise, any gibberish spoken by the snake would have been sufficient to induce the disobedient act.

joey jojo

MeanMrMustard
Adam could have wondered the garden, blissfully and innocently raping lions and goats, with his wife, and neither of them would be able to even begin to grasp why that be wrong. Those actions would hold the same moral weight as eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

The original sin story leaves a lot of questions that are difficult to answer:

What did Eve think she would gain by eating the fruit- what was in it for her?

As mustard eloquently points out - why risk a perfectly happy life, raping lions, goats- or anything else that crossed your path?

Non-human members of the animal kingdom do not know right from wrong. A male lion doesnt feel bad about killing his own offspring. Many animals are cannibalisitic. Dogs hump our legs. Is that the normal state of the human condition that god intended?

If adam had eaten eve- how was he to know it was wrong? Was that a better alternative than eating the fruit? How could god NOT forgive him?

Was the only reason that eve ate the fruit was because she wanted the 'wisdom' to distinguish between good and bad?

Did Adam or Eve understand the full consequences of their actions and how it would affect their descendants?

Did they understand that not only would they die, but that god was going to prevent access to the tree of life and curse them too?

Were they destined to die anyway- without eating from the tree of life?

If the serpent was the original liar- heres an idea: why not just kill the freakin snake and save us all some trouble??!!

Jeffro

Halcon:

Hehe.... keep trying jeffro

I don’t need to ‘keep trying’. I have already demonstrated that your understanding of the story is fallaciously impacted by theological bias beyond what the story actually says.

Jeffro

Halcon:

The snake asked Eve to repeat the very exact words of God

No it didn’t.

Jeffro

joey jojo:

Non-human members of the animal kingdom do not know right from wrong.

That sweeping statement based on an errant comparison with human morality is incorrect. Though other animals lack the same level of complex language and reasoning, various species - particularly social species - demonstrate varying degrees of empathy, fairness, justice, punishment, remorse, cooperation, loyalty, problem solving, etc.

Jeffro

Halcon has said several incorrect things about the story in Genesis chapters 2-3 that call into question his understanding of the story's content as well as its meaning. So wrong in fact that it is often hard to tell if he's even talking about the same story.

Eve understood the same thing, repeating it back to the snake verbatim.

No she didn't. Genesis 2:9 says the tree of life was in the middle of the garden, and that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was also there, and Genesis 2:17 gives the command (before Eve existed) that it was the fruit of the tree of knowledge that should not be eaten. But at Genesis 3:3, Eve only says it is the fruit of the tree 'in the middle of the garden' that cannot be eaten, without any indication that she knew it to be the 'tree of knowledge', and she also adds an additional edict to not even touch it, which is not indicated in the original command.

The snake apparently refused. And very likely lied to Adam and Eve simply out of spite.

There is no indication that the snake refused any command given to it, the snake told the truth about what eating the fruit would do, and there is no indication in the story about the snake's specific motive.

The story ends with Adam dying, according to Genesis.

Adam's death is not specifically depicted in the story, and the specific story ends with their expulsion from the garden, though the characters briefly appear in the separate story of Cain and Abel. It is only in a separate spurious genealogy that the length of Adam's life is specified.

The entire story is maybe 14 , 15 verses.

The story spans chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis, comprising 49 verses.

After God gives man everything first, he gives man one simple rule. ... He gave Adam everything he needed, first.

The rule about the tree was given before Eve was created (from a rib 😒), without whom it 'was not good for the man'.

God did not set up his creation just to simply fail.

In the story, God specifically prevents the humans from living after the lie about the knowledge fruit is revealed.

The snake clearly didn't accept the rules and limitations imposed on him by God.

The story does not indicate any rules or limitations put on the snake prior to the nonsensical 'punishment' in Genesis 3:14.

Indeed, God created the angels, including the one now known as the snake.

There is no basis in the story for concluding that the snake was either an angel itself or controlled by one. Association with 'Satan' was made up centuries later, and is basically fan-fiction.

Genesis doesn't imply anywhere that God introduced a factor to purposely unravel what he saw as good.

Only if you leave out the test involving the two trees and actively conspiring to prevent access to the tree of life.

The snake asked Eve to repeat the very exact words of God

No it didn't. And nor did she repeat the exact words.

'is it true that God said you WILL die?"

The snake never asks that.

Eve responded with 'yes'.

No she didn't.

joey jojo

Jeffro

joey jojo:

Non-human members of the animal kingdom do not know right from wrong.

That sweeping statement based on an errant comparison with human morality is incorrect. Though other animals lack the same level of complex language and reasoning, various species - particularly social species - demonstrate varying degrees of empathy, fairness, justice, punishment, remorse, cooperation, loyalty, problem solving, etc.

This entire thread is a discussion from a biblical point of view- I thought that was implied?

The topic of whether animals demonstrate social/ problem solving/ compassionate behaviours is another subject altogether.

TonusOH

Halcon: Further, the snake resorted to a temptation... that they would be like God.

I think this is where the story is more sensible as an allegory and not a literal event. The serpent tempted Eve, but he does so with the truth- eating from the fruit will grant them the knowledge of good and evil. Both god and the serpent even use the same phrasing, that she would 'become like god.' As an allegory, it isn't perfect, but it works well enough-- Eve is tempted by the possibility of being able to direct her own life, independent of god's rules. (The fact that this idea is so obviously flawed is simply a reflection of the people and culture that produced it, IMO.)

In the literal reading, one must wonder why god would infuse the tree with a power that was so destructive, leading to thousands of years of suffering. The all-or-nothing approach (obey or die) is extreme in any context, much less one where god is meant to be a kind and loving father who is pained by our failures. It is impossible to square the ideal person of god with the person who sets Adam and Eve up for a fall, then is merciless in his method of resolution. If this was the best outcome one could have hoped for, then god is not the person that the NT makes him out to be.

Jeffro

joey jojo:

This entire thread is a discussion from a biblical point of view- I thought that was implied?

In that case, the snake couldn’t validly be accused of deception if it didn’t know right from wrong.

A male lion doesnt feel bad about killing his own offspring. Many animals are cannibalisitic. Dogs hump our legs. Is that the normal state of the human condition that god intended?

I don’t remember that being in the Bible story.

Who told the first lie?

Share this