Inspired by a discussion with a Christian friend of mine and this video:


This is a continuation of the argument presented in the video. When presented with this argument most theists will argue that Adam and Eve did know good and evil or that they simply knew not to disobey God, and that should have been enough. However, upon closer examination of Genesis, I don't think either of these arguments hold up. You see, I don't think that God's words are clear enough for Eve to realize she's about to disobey God when she eats the fruit off the tree of knowlege. Rather Eve would have probably percieved God's words as an example of cause and effect.

(Gen 2:15-17) The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

I want to focus on the part of the sentence in bold. This sounds more like a warning than a command not to disobey. God is basicly saying, "If A then B." If you eat the fruit off the tree you will die. Therefore the tree is poison. Eve's incentive to avoid eating from the tree is harm avoidance, not obdience.

(Gen 3:2-3) The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

Eve shows that she understands this concept. She understands, "If I eat from the tree I will die." If A then B. If the issue was obidence, God merely would have commanded her not to eat from the tree.

(Gen 3:4-6) "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.


The serpent contradicts her. If Eve had an understanding of good and evil she would probably be feeling wary by this point. Without this knowlege she has no way to judge if the serpent's words can be trusted. She cannot tell if he is a good person... er, snake. She cannot even tell whether God is a good person because she has no capacity for understanding goodness. The serpent then explains that the apple is a SHINEY apple. Yay!

The "test" assigned to Adam and Eve without their knowlege was unfair. They were not equipped to pass, no matter what they did. The Adam and Eve story makes more sense as a story than as historical event.

Views: 19

Tags: adam and eve, arguments, bible, debate, genesis, religious belief

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by OutlawGirl on November 27, 2009 at 4:34pm
Not to mention the Genesis account never gives any indication that the serpent is more than just a serpent.
Comment by Jaume on November 27, 2009 at 3:52pm
Talking about inconsistencies - the Christians are so intoxicated by the biblic ones they even add their own. Did you notice that, in Christian art, the serpent always looks like, well, a standard snake (just like in the video), when he's depicted talking to Eve?

Genesis 3:14: And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

It seems logical to conclude that before his punishment, the serpent had either legs or wings. Yet those are never shown.
Comment by OutlawGirl on November 27, 2009 at 1:07pm
I had more philosophical problems with religion at six than I realized at the time. Like I would wonder why god would create so many stars and galaxies for the purpose of... what? Wowing us with his omnipotence? It didn't make any sense. I also pondered what purpose our souls would serve in the afterlife. Even at six years old, floating around feeling happy all the time didn't sound appealing to me or even reasonable. I was content to believe in it when my pet bunny died but most of the time I was skeptical.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service