Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Grimace]

That whole section doesn't even matter. Whether god made us perfect or not, that is not relevant. God made us, according to the bible.

> Just that most people deride the story of the serpent because they think it's silly fiction or senseless mythology: snakes don't talk. But that's not what the text is about (a talking snake), so I tossed it in since you seemed to think the text was about perfection, nudity, and that they didn't have knowledge—other elements that aren't part of the text.

Ok. Complete side not, got it.

> God had said to them explicitly, "When you eat of it you will be doomed to death (they would fall under a death sentence)."

Ok. Than the serpent said god was lying. How would they know who to trust?

> First of all, they knew it was a moral and spiritual choice, not a dietary one.

How? How did they know to trust god over the serpent at this point, before eating the fruit?

> God and the humans have already interacted about the roles God has established for them (co-regent in 1.28; priest and priestess in 2.15 [the words "work" and "care for" are priestly words, not agricultural ones]). Secondly, God has introduced them to the tree of life and this tree, so they have been informed about morality and spirituality.

Have they? Then what was the point of the fruit then? Just to f*** with them?

> Now, let's examine Gn. 2.17 more closely. For God to command them presupposes a few things: : (1) They know who God is (some relationship between them is assumable, (2) They know him as an authority over them, (3) They have an understanding of right and wrong, and (4) They know what death is (or God is warning them about a completely unknown and unknowable entity, which doesn't make sense. Death was already in the system.). Their freedoms are affirmed, their right to choose is affirmed, and the consequence of disobedience is clear.

Isn't that the stuff they learned from the fruit? If they knew everything about that stuff before the fruit, then what was the point of the fruit?

[jimwalton]

> God made us, according to the bible.

We can agree about this. Phew.

> Than the serpent said god was lying. How would they know who to trust?

Yes, the serpent said God was lying. The point of issue was whether to trust God, whom they knew had made them, provided for them, assigned them their role and function, and counseled them, or to trust another spiritual being who was none of the above. At first glance, that's a no-brainer.

But why would they expect a spiritual being to lie? They probably wouldn't, and herein lies the deception. But it should still be a no-brainer. The account of Gn. 1-2 speaks of God's sovereign effectiveness ("and it was so") and his omnibenevolence ("it was good"). The people had a relationship with God (Gn. 2). The serpent portrayed God as *not* being benevolent (that he was motivated by envy) and not being truthful or effective ("You will not die"). It was see-able. The deceit was there: deny who God is, and believe a falsehood about him. The humans were morally capable (chapter 2), and so perception and a right decision were within their reach.

As I said, the fruit was not their exposure to evil or their first knowledge of it. What it was was their first venture into sin (downright disobedience).

> Then what was the point of the fruit then? Just to f*** with them?

Not at all. It represents choice. Every day we have choices whether to act morally or immorally, to be kind or nasty to others, to pursue truth or to pursue our own agendas and distort truth into what we want it to be. So did they. They were human, just like we are. The tree was a focal point of those choices: would they be accountable to God and pursue truth and wisdom, or would they be accountable only to themselves and do whatever they wanted?

> Isn't that the stuff they learned from the fruit?

As you said, they knew that stuff before the fruit. What they learned from eating the fruit was the meaning of sin and its consequences (Romans 5.12; 1 Cor. 15.21-22). They deliberately defied God and rebelled against his command. In doing so, they lost access to the presence of God.

Genesis 3.7 says "their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked."

1. "Their eyes were opened." They became conscious of a new nature in them: sin. The serpent had promised them enlightenment, but what their open eyes saw was depravity.

2. "They realized they were naked." A new sense of shame and a knowledge of guilt (sin). The serpent had promised them wisdom, but what they gain is a sudden and acute sense of shame.

The fruit symbolizes their decision (Just like if you draw a line in the sand and dare me to cross it. My simple step symbolizes my decision), and their eating of it is a declaration of their direction.

[Grimace]

If humans didn't know evil or lies or anything like that, how would they know not to trust the serpent? They didn't know sin, they didn't understand lying and consequences. You said so yourself.

Also love how you censored my swearing. Also, it was pretty clear I only said god made humans for this discussion, I don't actually believe that.

[jimwalton]

> If humans didn't know evil or lies or anything like that, how would they know not to trust the serpent? They didn't know sin, they didn't understand lying and consequences. You said so yourself.

What I said was they they knew good and evil, right and wrong, but didn't know sin. They were both spiritually and morally capable. It was at this particular point in time, because they were both spiritually and morally capable (and culpable), that God knew it was time to hold them accountable for their decisions, which of course is necessary for true right and wrong. So they were competent to decide about the serpent, but they didn't know sin until they intentionally defied God on the basis of the serpent's deceit.

> Also, it was pretty clear I only said god made humans for this discussion, I don't actually believe that.

Yeah, I figured as much, but what you said was "God made us, according to the bible," which is true whether or not you subscribe to that information. That's why I said "We agree on this." We agree that the Bible says that (not that we both believe it).

[Grimace]

> What I said was they they knew good and evil, right and wrong, but didn't know sin.

This makes no sense. What is sin then?

[jimwalton]

Sin is transgression against God, defiance against his will, and rebellion against his person. Romans 5.13 says that "before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." So a person isn't accountable for their sin if the transgression isn't made clear (the law). For instance, if there's no posted speed limit (and for the sake of the analogy, no understood speed limit, like on the Autobahn in Germany), then there can't possibly be speeding infractions or tickets. Where there is no law, there can be no infraction.

I believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, so right and wrong have always been part of the system. But there was no such thing as sin until God said, "Don't do this" and they rebelled against him. It's as if God then put a speed limit sign on the Autobahn. Now it's a different matter when you go 130 mph.

[Grimace]

So, you are claiming that Adam & Eve knew what they were doing when they ate the fruit? They knew the consequences and did it anyway? They knew trusting the serpent instead of god was wrong?

[jimwalton]

That's hard to say. Remember, the Bible admits they were deceived (Gen. 3.13; 2 Cor. 11.3; 1 Tim. 2.14), so we have to interpret what that means. They certainly knew the consequences, but I imagine, since they were normal human beings, that somehow they might have thought they were doing a good thing.

Gen. 3.13, she seems to know she was lied to, tricked, misled, whatever term suits best. Note that she doesn't plead ignorance of God's command (and that's what makes her ultimately culpable).

2 Cor. 11.3 implies a historical "Eve". The text refers to her only archetypally—as an analogy—about how easily people may be deceived and led astray. But that admits she was tricked. So it's hard to claim how much she knew what she was doing, though she knew she was eating the fruit that had been forbidden to her. That much is inescapable.

1 Tim. 2.14. Here we find out Adam was not deceived but ate willfully. His disobedience was deliberate (Rom. 5.12). Eve, by her own admission, as I said, was tricked, and so her disobedience may be less clear. But the text still says she is guilty of sin, so she had enough knowledge of what she was doing to know that it was wrong.

So it's really difficult to pin down what was going through her mind at the time. We are only told a little (Gn. 3.1-7), though enough to make the case:

1. The serpent deliberately tried to cause doubt and confusion: "Did God really say..." It implies that God has been unreasonable and possibly should be distrusted.

2. The serpent changed what God said ("You must not eat from any tree in the garden"), implying He has deprived them of something good, in other words, He was holding back—casting doubt on His goodness. It also implies God has somehow been mean or miserly.

3. The woman had it right ("We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden"), showing us she very well knew what God had said, that He was good and not miserly.

4. But then she admits knowing what his command was ("You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden"), so she has to have known that is was disobedient to eat the fruit, and we also know she heard the second half of the consequences (on the day you eat it you will be doomed to die).

5. Then she ADDS to God's command ("and you must not touch it"), magnifying his strictness.

6. The serpent outright lies to her: "You will not surely die." Blocher comments, "Even when he is bold enough to contradict the terms of God’s words, there is still ambiguity. The unusual placing of the negative leaves open the possibility of understanding it as: 'It is not proper death that you will undergo.' In other words, dare to experience the change. The emphasis remains on the criticism of the character of God, depicted by implication as selfish, jealous, oppressive, and repressive."

Walton adds, "He contradicts Eve's version, not God's. He knows enough not to deny the precise penalty as God worded it. In 2.17 we find an absolute infinitive coupled with the finite verb of the same root. To negate this sort of syntactical construction the negative particle is placed between the two verb forms, in effect negating the finite verb. In this case the translation would be 'You will not be doomed to die.' But that is not the construction the serpent uses. Instead, the negative particle precedes both verb forms, thus negating the absolute infinitive. Since the absolute infinitive serves in these cases (cf. Ps. 49.8; Amos 9.8) to indicate the inevitability of the action, the negation of the infinitive absolute is a negation of the inevitability. He has contradicted Eve's phrasing of the penalty, not God's, though he has not said that she will not die. The serpent's statement can therefore be paraphrased something like, 'Don't think that death is such an immediate threat.' The link to the next statement creates the sense that, according to the serpent, it was never really God's intention to put them to death, as if God only said that to discourage them from acquiring the marvelous properties of the tree. In effect, then, the serpent does not actually contradict God; he only suggests that there is nothing to worry about."

7. Then the serpent lies again (v. 5). He claims to be showing her the mind of God, and that she'll be better off trusting him (the serpent)—that the serpent has something better for her than God did, as if God were going to deprive her of something good. He was claiming she could achieve wisdom his way, and her way (independently of God), but not so much through God's way.

8. Then we find out a little about what she was thinking (v. 6). She saw that it was good for food and pleasing to the eye, i.e., beneficial and also potentially enlightening. She perceived that it was desirable for gaining wisdom, as if it had magical properties all by itself.

She took it, in knowing disobedience, but it seems that possibly thinking she was doing a good thing. Socrates asserted that no one can know good and yet choose evil; if one knows good and yet commits an act that society calls evil, then that person mistook an evil act for a good one. Was that happening here? Possibly.

Then she gave some to Adam "who was with her." Since he was there the whole time, his silence is inexplicable. She was tricked. 1 Timothy implies he wasn't. He openly rebelled. But guilt rests on them both, because she knew.

[Grimace]

Look at the amount of work you have to do to try to make this story make any kind of sense.

[jimwalton]

Oh, that's not it at all. I'm explaining somewhat thoroughly to answer your question well. If I just slap out a few sentences, there will be pieces missing. You're asking about a person's thoughts, motives, understandings, and actions, and whether there is true guilt. In that sense you've come to trial as a prosecuting attorney. If I don't present an adequate defense, including as many aspects as I feel are pertinent, the jury (you again) will dismiss the case as nonsense. But then when I do present a thorough case, you dismiss it as trying too hard. I guess I can't win against that mentality.