Who told the first lie? (page 9)

Halcon

Jeffro -So if you don’t care whether something is actually true, then yes ‘Satan is the first liar’ according to Christianity (duh).

Duh, but it wasn't so obvious to several folks here.

Setting aside the Christian retrofitting of the Enkidu and Shamhat… sorry… Adam and Eve story, it was God who told the first lie. After Adam and Eve eat the magical fruit of one tree, God has to take action to prevent them eating from a different magical tree. It is directly stated in the story that it is the fruit of the other magical tree that imparts eternal life, not refraining from eating the fruit of the first tree. (All of the quibbling about what day ‘really’ means is just a distraction.)

But the Christian mangling of the story is so tangled in knots that they can’t unravel what parts are supposed to be literal and what is metaphor. Kind of pathetic really. It’s not a very complicated story.

slimboyfat

The Christian Bible says that. But it’s just because a later work retrofits a character from an earlier work without regard to the actual development or original purpose of the source material, not because any of it is actually true.

The book of Genesis is itself a reworking of an earlier source. So why prioritise the reworking of the story by the compiler of Genesis over the reworking of the story by the compilers of the Bible?

What do you mean by “actually true”? We can only interpret the story in a context, whether you pick an early Jewish context, or a later Christian context, those are interpretive choices. We don’t have access to the story in its original form, so it’s not as if you can claim a pristine original that must be sacrosanct. One contextual reading is not “actually true”, and the other “false”. They are both narratives and make sense in their own terms. Unless you are arguing that there really was a snake in an actual garden of Eden and that one interpretation is closer to that reality than another, and therefore “actually true”. I can’t imagine that’s what you mean.

enoughisenough

I haven't read through all whatever points of facts ones choose to promote here and won't waste my time, save to write, If one believes in a divine creator, they should be leary of trying to prove him a liar.

Jeffro

slimboyfat:

What do you mean by “actually true”? We can only interpret the story in a context, whether you pick an early Jewish context, or a later Christian context, those are interpretive choices. We don’t have access to the story in its original form, so it’s not as if you can claim a pristine original that must be sacrosanct. One contextual reading is not “actually true”, and the other “false”. They are both narratives and make sense in their own terms. Unless you are arguing that there really was a snake in an actual garden of Eden and that one interpretation is closer to that reality than another, and therefore “actually true”. I can’t imagine that’s what you mean.

You’re not really this dim though are you? You do understand, I hope, that Christians propose that Adam and Eve were real people and that their actions are actually significant (and I am obviously not talking about denominations that don’t believe that, though their basis for belief is on much shakier ground). But the actual reality is that it is just a story. The fact that it is a story based on an earlier story doesn’t change the fact that it’s just a story. 🤦‍♂️

Halcon

Jeffro -After Adam and Eve eat the magical fruit of one tree, God has to take action to prevent them eating from a different magical tree. It is directly stated in the story that it is the fruit of the other magical tree that imparts eternal life, not refraining from eating the fruit of the first tree. (All of the quibbling about what day ‘really’ means is just a distraction.)

This is precisely why it was the snake that lied.

The snake said to Eve "you will not die"

Jeffro

enoughisenough:

I haven't read through all whatever points of facts ones choose to promote here and won't waste my time, save to write, If one believes in a divine creator, they should be leary of trying to prove him a liar.

Sounds like a veiled attempt at begging the question, because you are suggesting that the ‘divine creator’, if one exists, is necessarily the one in this particular story.

Jeffro

Halcon:

This is precisely why it was the snake that lied.
The snake said to Eve "you will not die"

Nonsense. In the story, Eve dies because the jerk God character prevents her from eating a separate magical fruit, not because of any inherent property of the first magical fruit (which does precisely what the snake said would happen). Nothing in the story suggests the snake knew that would happen. And if the snake knew God planned to kill her for naively eating magical fruit, it also indicates that the snake knew God’s a jerk.

If someone says it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder, but someone else says it’s not, the second person isn’t lying just because it’s possible that someone might walk under a ladder and then get stabbed by the person who said it’s unlucky to walk under ladders.

But it’s even worse when the first person is deliberately deceptive by saying ‘if you do this you will die’, but what they really mean is ‘if you do this, I will actively prevent your survival’.

joey jojo

Compared to the rest of humanity, Adam and Eve suffered nothing. They lived over 900 years in near perfect health in a pristine world.

Now, explain how that's fair to a 5 year old kid living in a war torn, third world garbage heap, dying of starvation.

KalebOutWest

Oh, for crying out loud! You are all a bunch of spoiled brats who want to promote your own ideas. You can't think outside your self-serving bubbles if you tried!

If you are a mainstream or a mainline Christian, you understand the story to be an allegorical one, with the snake being identified with Satan but as the Church Fathers and modern theologians state only by illustration. Since Genesis was not written with Revelation in mind or with Christianity in mind, one cannot possibly claim that "the Bible was written to claim" that the snake was Satan--or that Jesus would later call him as the "Father of the lie" but at the same time not state that he was linking this to the Genesis account (which at John 8:44 there is no mention whatsoever).

If you are a Fundamentalist Christian, you might claim that the statement in John 8:44 was somehow discussing Satan in Genesis chapter 3 and "the dragon, the age-old serpent" as mention in Revelation 12:9, but you have a hard time explaining how Genesis was purposefully written with either of the other two texts in mind in light of the official canonization process. The canon of the Bible was created in response to the heresy of Macion of Sinope and not due to the popular readings of the Christian community. If the popular books of the Christian community were chosen, the Apocalypse of Peter would have been chosen instead of the Revelation to John, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Wisdom of Solomon would have been included, more Epistles of Peter would have been included (except for 2 Peter) and less of the Pauline library (if any). The gospel of Luke appears in the New Testament because it was the counterfeit gospel that Marcion claimed to have written (and he removed the first two chapters). Paul's letters appear in the canon because Marcion edited all evidence of Paul's pro-Jewish comments, claiming Paul did not believe in the God of the Jews. Luke's work of Acts is included (Luke, by the way is neither an Apostle nor a Jew, yet his work is elevated to Apostolic witness in the canon by the Church Fathers to counter Marcion).

If you are Jewish, the snake is the same character as the donkey in Numbers chapter 22. It is a Hebrew trope that represents a "crisis of conscience" in the Torah (remember that Genesis chapter 3 is the same book as Numbers 22 in Hebrew in Judaism, known as "the Torah"). In Genesis the "snake" is the "crisis" of Eve, whether or not she should break the Ten Commandment against "stealing" and partaking of the forbidden fruit. In Numbers, the "donkey" is the "crisis" of Balaam to "use the Name of the Lord in vain" and "bear false witness" by giving a false oracle in the Name of the Lord and cursing Israel. When Eve listens to the "snake" or her "conscience," both are punished. When Balaam listens to his "conscience," both are allowed to live. If you notice, in both narratives, another trope is used, an angel with a sword that represents "death" as divine judgment. (And notice how both Eve and Balaam speak to "their animal" as if animals can always speak, as if nothing is out of place--this is because it is merely a narrative device.)

If you are angry at God, you are just looking for any reason to blame God. You don't really care.

You aren't reading through anything. You aren't looking up information that is outside of your bubble of interest. You are just angry. And you claim God doesn't exist. But you can't be angry at something that isn't real. You should be angry at the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

You can't be angry at a myth or a book or religions that you are not and have never been a part of. It is illogical.

And if you really wanted to know the answer, you would stop arguing and go and get a degree in theology.

But you don't really want an answer.

You are just angry.

Angry people don't want answers.

It's okay to be angry and not want answers, however. But it isn't the fault of any story or the characters within it, no matter how mythical or false. You anger is real. Myths and allegories are not. You cannot heal your feelings and viewpoints and opinions by arguing over allegories and religions that you will not get formal education on (or feel you do not need or require). You are real. Your opinions are real. Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the folklore and myths and legends of my people the Jews, and not.

You are being very unhealthy in dealing with your realities.

Who told the first lie?

Share this