Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou 299 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Halcon

  The story indicates that the god is capricious and deceptive.

  The entire story is maybe 14 , 15 verses. In those verses God did exactly as he said he would. There is nothing capricious or deceptive by God found in those verses.

  Who knows what else it would do to the naive unwitting people if they continued ignorant.

  This is going outside of the story in isolation.

  Joey -Once again, I feel the need to point out that compared to his offspring, Adam didnt suffer too much.

  This is true. It was just him and his wife and a handful of kids for a while.
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

  There is nothing capricious or deceptive by God found in those verses.

  Genesis 3:22-24:

  22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the groundfrom which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming swordflashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

  Maybe you’re reading a different story. Or just so enamoured with the character based on other stories that you can’t see that the character is a jerk.
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

  The entire story is maybe 14 , 15 verses.

  Seems you must be reading a different story. 🤣
• 

  TonusOH

  Halcon: Will I recognize God as my creator and I am the creation, only human?

  I think this question only arises because we are unable to interact with god, and god just never seems to show up anymore. Adam, Eve, and the serpent would not have had this issue. In that sense, it doesn't strike me as a question of whether or not they recognized god's position and authority. The humans must have, as they did not eat of the forbidden fruit until goaded into doing so.

  The story implies that things were working out just fine until the serpent entered the picture. I don't see this as a question of whether modesty compels us to understand our relationship with god-- Adam and Eve appear to have figured this out. I think it's a question of whether god was satisfied with this, and why he would introduce a factor which unraveled his utopia.

  I accept the premise that the serpent deceived Eve. I think it's fair to consider that her understanding would not have involved dying --at any time-- as a result of eating the fruit. But where does the serpent come from? God must have created it. Did he do so with the understanding that it would work to undermine paradise and trap humanity in centuries of suffering? Did he give snakes the gift of speech and a clever nature, unaware of what might transpire? Were the humans ready for this kind of test? If not, was it fair?
• 

  Jeffro

  TonusOH:

  I accept the premise that the serpent deceived Eve.

  It didn’t. The wise serpent (the same word translated ‘crafty’ or ‘cunning’ is translated as ‘wise’ or ‘prudent’ in Proverbs) truthfully told Eve that eating the fruit doesn’t actually cause death. After ‘the jig was up’ when it became evident that eating the fruit doesn’t cause death, the god takes separate steps to prevent the humans from living forever.

  But where does the serpent come from? God must have created it.

  A valid question and conclusion if the story is (erroneously) taken as an original Jewish story, and in the context of later Christian interpretations. But in reality, the snake, the god, and the god’s entourage, are all borrowed tropes from an older story.
• 

  Halcon

  Jeffro -It didn’t. The wise serpent (the same word translated ‘crafty’ or ‘cunning’ is translated as ‘wise’ or ‘prudent’ in Proverbs) truthfully told Eve that eating the fruit doesn’t actually cause death.

  Jeffro, your key word here is 'actually'...a word that neither God nor the snake used.

  God simply said 'you will die'... whereas the snake said 'you will not die '.
• 

  Halcon

  Tonus, oooofff...these are tough questions. I'm already feeling like I'm sinking in quicksand just thinking about answering them 😅. I'll share what I believe.

  Tonus -I think it's a question of whether god was satisfied with this, and why he would introduce a factor which unraveled his utopia.

  Genesis states God was satisfied with his creation, he saw it as 'good'. Genesis doesn't imply anywhere that God introduced a factor to purposely unravel what he saw as good.

  But where does the serpent come from? God must have created it.

  Indeed, God created the angels, including the one now known as the snake. And based on the actions of many angels (materializing into men for ex), they too were created with the capacity to subject to God or not. The snake clearly didn't accept the rules and limitations imposed on him by God.

  Did he do so with the understanding that it would work to undermine paradise and trap humanity in centuries of suffering? Were the humans ready for this kind of test? If not, was it fair.

  Again, this was clearly not God's intention (considering the entire Bible). God did not set up his creation just to simply fail.

  The point was for humanity to be given the chance to express humility towards the Creator. To recognize him as God. God expressed his superiority from the very beginning. He never hid this from his creation. He never called his creation equal to him.

  Now, to a person of faith, God loved man first. It wasn't about subjecting man to a terrible existence. He gave Adam everything he needed, first. This is what Genesis states. After God gives man everything first, he gives man one simple rule. It wasn't vague either. There was no trick to it. No deep comprehension of spirituality and philosophy was required.

  Adam knew he was inferior to God. Adam was familiar with the concept of affection and appreciation (for his wife for ex). He knew God had given him everything he had. Finally, God warned him that he would die, in effect lose everything, if he went against the rule.

  But none of this compelled him to obey the one ridiculously simple command.
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

  God simply said 'you will die'... whereas the snake said 'you will not die '.

  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.

  If I tell you that you will die if you eat a meal today, it doesn’t make that meal causative of the fact that you will die some day. 🤦‍♂️ (And it makes me no better if I decide to kill you if you eat a meal.)
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

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

  🤣 So he can add an entire layer of narrative to the story that isn’t present, but he gets annoyed with me because the story didn’t use the word “actually”. 🤦‍♂️
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Meanmustard brought up some good points regarding the very possible mental capacity of Adam and Eve at this juncture, which I believe further explains and justifies the simplicity of God's command to stay away from the tree of knowledge.

  Yes, but also their ability to ward off even the most rudimentary deceptions. Even their capacity to "trust" God is severely handicapped. More below...
  

  The command was so simple and elementary so as to borderline on 'dumb'.

  The simplicity doesn't have anything to do with it.
  

  Why did the snake insist on eating from this forbidden tree given all the circumstances? As mustard pointed out, Adam and Eve couldn't have fathomed the consequences of disobedience, since even the concept of 'death' was not clear to them...such was their lack of comprehension.

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

  I don't even think trust works here - at least not any sort of "trust" to which you could attach moral culpability.
  

  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.

  In other words, the ability to "trust" is still contingent on a sense of morality. What you are considering "trust" is more akin to blind obedience in the face of a contradicted threat, with no way to reasonably evaluate the sides - correction - without any awareness there are "sides" at all.