Did Satan actually lie?

[Magnetic]

Genesis 2:16 Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden.
17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die."

Gen. 3:1 - The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"
2 The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden.
3 "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death'"
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die!
5 "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh.

6 The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths.

8 The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.
9 But Yahweh God called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked.
10 "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid."
11 "Who told you that you were naked?" he asked. "Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?"

And now we come to the crux of the Fall. Yahweh had said back there in chapter 2:17, regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter 3:4-5: "No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." So what actually happened?

22 Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."

"Food" for thought. A bad pun, but usable here. So, Satan actually told the truth to Eve.

As a side note: It would seem that they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden so they wouldn't eat of the Tree of Life. Without access to the Tree of Life, Adam lives only a total of 930 years. Which is still a long time to physically live, and it would seem that the only reason they began to die is because God DID kick them out of the garden.

Ps. Unless you realize that the whole story is a narrative, a Jewish parable for them to pass down from generation to generation to show what horrible people they were, thus sometimes deserving of God's wrath. But I digress.

[Darth Yoshi]

Technically, they were both telling the truth.

Yahweh's statement refers to eventual death, which is true. Adam and Eve eventually died of old age. The serpent was also telling the truth, since Eve did not die instantly upon eating the fruit.

[Jawawithagun]

Technically, they were both telling the truth.

Yahweh's statement refers to eventual death, which is true.

No, it doesn't!

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.

[felineki]

Add to this the fact that because Adam and Eve apparently had no sense of right or wrong before eating the fruit, there's no real reason to consider the "original sin" a sin at all, apart from the standard "'cuz God said so!!", and the whole story becomes one big sack of crap.

[TimothyC]

Note: The following is entirely unscientific, and is not ment to be take as scientific.

All Quotes are from the King James, however I prefer E.W. Bullinger's translation more (I don't own a copy of that as I can't afford it, and if I need to use a copy I borrow one of my parent's copies)


The answer that I find to these questions is this: Man was a three part being, made of Body, Soul, and Spirit. Adam and Eve both had Spirit 'built in' so to speek when they were made (this supports the different times they were created (Spirit in Genesis 1:26-28) and made of the ground (Body and Soul in Genesis 2:7)). And it was the spirit life [which for refrence allows for direct communication with God] that God was talking about when he gave the order "But of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shat surely die." (Gen 2:17).

Eve later missquoted God "And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"" (Gen 3:2,3). It was from this mistake that the Serpent manipulated Eve, who then manipulated Adam to eat the fruit. At that point they lost spirit life, which was not avalible to humans in the same manner as it was to Adam and Eve, until after the Day of Pentacost (Acts 2).

Now the obvious question is how did the bible come into being? The answer is that God was able to temporarily give spirit to people, but was not able to give it on a perminate basis. Infact the textual evidence points to the fact that The Spirit life cannont be removed from a person who receives it through Jesus, as they are 'Sons of God', and in the lands and times of the Bible, sonship was something that was very, very hard to revoke.

Yes I know that this leads to the possibility of someone like say Hitler getting into heaven, while say Mr. Wong doesn't, and many would view this as not moral, I however avoid this with the most powerful case of double-think you've ever seen.

Pre-Edit Edit thing: As you have probably guessed I'm not a typical Chirstian (I am for lack of a better term a 'rogue' Anti-trinitarian, and as such am not bount by typical christian dogma).

[quote="felineki']Add to this the fact that because Adam and Eve apparently had no sense of right or wrong before eating the fruit, there's no real reason to consider the "original sin" a sin at all, apart from the standard "'cuz God said so!!", and the whole story becomes one big sack of crap.[/quote]

Any 'original sin' would have been Adam's fault as he wasn't tricked by the Serpent, and ate freely of the tree without having been deceived.

[Mobiboros]

It's worth noting, also, that many don't think that the serpent was Satan but actually Lilith. Many older paintings based on the bible depict the serpent as part serpent, part female.

That said, God really is the liar here, not the snake. The snake just called him out on the lie and everyone points an accusing finger at the snake because he contradicts God.

[Darth Yoshi]

Technically, they were both telling the truth.

Yahweh's statement refers to eventual death, which is true.

No, it doesn't!

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.

Oops.

[Captain Cyran]

Technically, they were both telling the truth.

Yahweh's statement refers to eventual death, which is true.

No, it doesn't!

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.

I think that, like many things later on in the bible, a spiritual death is being refered to as opposed to a physical one. Which would mean we'd have to be ignorant in order to be spiritual... huh.

[Molyneux]

Ps. Unless you realize that the whole story is a narrative, a Jewish parable for them to pass down from generation to generation to show what horrible people they were, thus sometimes deserving of God's wrath. But I digress.

Oi! Don't pin that on Judaism - the idea of Original Sin is a Christian thing.
Granted, archaic Judaism was, at one point, every bit as stupid as the fundies are now. We got smarter over the centuries, though. Very few Jews actually take much of the Torah to be complete literal truth, or completely God-written.

[Surlethe]

Very few Jews actually take much of the Torah to be complete literal truth, or completely God-written.

Just as a minority of Christians take the Bible to be complete literal truth, or completely God-written?

[wolveraptor]

I'm sick of people saying that the Bible is allegorical. Allegorical for what? How much of an asshole God is, for causing the death of people whom he made to be stupid, creating the serpent and hating knowledge?
The stories in the Bible would largely merit D's in any writing class, if the objective was a deep symbolic meaning.

[TimothyC]

I think that, like many things later on in the bible, a spiritual death is being refered to as opposed to a physical one. Which would mean we'd have to be ignorant in order to be spiritual... huh.

No, just that being both was the state Adam and Eve were in because, as of Pentacost (Acts 2) we can have both Spirit and knowledge

[Captain Cyran]

I'm sick of people saying that the Bible is allegorical. Allegorical for what? How much of an asshole God is, for causing the death of people whom he made to be stupid, creating the serpent and hating knowledge?
The stories in the Bible would largely merit D's in any writing class, if the objective was a deep symbolic meaning.

Then, dare I ask, what else could they be? Real? That sure as fuck isn't possible, and since they are meant to pervay a message if you like it or not, guess what? That means Allegory. You're also conveniently forgetting little things like the fact that morals and ideas on what are good and bad were different thousands of years ago, or hell, even 20 fucking years ago. So a God to us that is a fucking prick was most likely (since he was worshipped, and only in polytheistic religions do you get an evil God that is feared and loathed) was the greatest thing since fire and the wheel to these people.

[Captain Cyran]

I think that, like many things later on in the bible, a spiritual death is being refered to as opposed to a physical one. Which would mean we'd have to be ignorant in order to be spiritual... huh.

No, just that being both was the state Adam and Eve were in because, as of Pentacost (Acts 2) we can have both Spirit and knowledge

*looks* Dear lord, my italics are spontaniously appearing...

Anyway, in that case I'd either leave it up to another wonderful contradiction that the bible can be so full of or that we've got a case of God changing his mind and not killing Adam and Eve (Remember that we are talking about an omnipotent and omniscient god, which means he'd have the final say on death). Though the fact that he apparently didn't know about Adam and Eve eating the apple until he saw them kind of puts a bit of an issue with being Omniscient...

Fucking contradictions are making my head hurt.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

This thread triggered a memory of a book by Steven Brust that I read some 20 years ago called "To Reign in Hell". It's a fantasy fiction, and Brust states in the forward that he was inspired by a contradiction between two themes found consistently throughout Christianity: that God is omnipotent, and that Satan is no fool. If these are true, then it is illogical that Satan would choose to rebel against God. It was an interesting read (though not his best work).

Regarding original sin, this doctrine goes hand in hand with the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and so it is entirely Christian. But if there was no understanding of good or evil prior to eating the apple, then neither Eve nor Adam can be said to have sinned when eating it. So I find the entire doctrine lacking (not to mention that an atoning sacrifice of one who is above death doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice at all).

Was a metaphorical/spiritual meaning intended (rather than a physical one)? It makes more sense, but it also requires one to read into the text that which isn't there. In other words, there is no way to tell.

[wolveraptor]

Then, dare I ask, what else could they be? Real? That sure as fuck isn't possible, and since they are meant to pervay a message if you like it or not, guess what? That means Allegory. You're also conveniently forgetting little things like the fact that morals and ideas on what are good and bad were different thousands of years ago, or hell, even 20 fucking years ago. So a God to us that is a fucking prick was most likely (since he was worshipped, and only in polytheistic religions do you get an evil God that is feared and loathed) was the greatest thing since fire and the wheel to these people.

I suppose the people of the age were too uneducated and stupid to realize subtle metaphor when they saw it. No wonder the Bible is so straightforward. They are allegory, I concede, but piss-poor examples of it.

[Captain Cyran]

Then, dare I ask, what else could they be? Real? That sure as fuck isn't possible, and since they are meant to pervay a message if you like it or not, guess what? That means Allegory. You're also conveniently forgetting little things like the fact that morals and ideas on what are good and bad were different thousands of years ago, or hell, even 20 fucking years ago. So a God to us that is a fucking prick was most likely (since he was worshipped, and only in polytheistic religions do you get an evil God that is feared and loathed) was the greatest thing since fire and the wheel to these people.

I suppose the people of the age were too uneducated and stupid to realize subtle metaphor when they saw it. No wonder the Bible is so straightforward. They are allegory, I concede, but piss-poor examples of it.

Not at all. Subtle metaphors are honestly some of the worst shit possible. Especially when you're trying to convey something to the common person. You want a metaphor that is EASY to understand, not something that people are gonna walk away from scratching their heads in confusion. For example, what is the metaphor behind this story? Simple. Obey what God says because if you don't bad shit is gonna happen to you.

[Magnetic]

Then, dare I ask, what else could they be? Real? That sure as fuck isn't possible, and since they are meant to pervay a message if you like it or not, guess what? That means Allegory. You're also conveniently forgetting little things like the fact that morals and ideas on what are good and bad were different thousands of years ago, or hell, even 20 fucking years ago. So a God to us that is a fucking prick was most likely (since he was worshipped, and only in polytheistic religions do you get an evil God that is feared and loathed) was the greatest thing since fire and the wheel to these people.

I suppose the people of the age were too uneducated and stupid to realize subtle metaphor when they saw it. No wonder the Bible is so straightforward. They are allegory, I concede, but piss-poor examples of it.

Not at all. Subtle metaphors are honestly some of the worst shit possible. Especially when you're trying to convey something to the common person. You want a metaphor that is EASY to understand, not something that people are gonna walk away from scratching their heads in confusion. For example, what is the metaphor behind this story? Simple. Obey what God says because if you don't bad shit is gonna happen to you.

Probably why the creation account is so simplified. That's a good thought, Cyran.

[Vendetta]

No.

If you want a reason why, turn to Mike Carey's Lucifer comics.

The character of Lucifer, in most Christian mythology, is the sin he was supposed to have committed. Pride.

He doesn't lie, he keeps his word, because he's too proud not to.

[Darth Servo]

Technically, they were both telling the truth.

Yahweh's statement refers to eventual death, which is true.

No, it doesn't!

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.

Keep in mind, God often plays time games, like "one day is as a thousand years with the Lord" or something to that effect, so since Adam "only" lived 930 years, it was still one day on God's clock.

[Steven Snyder]

Probably why the creation account is so simplified. That's a good thought, Cyran.

For a species created on 'God's own image' we sure are slow on the uptake...It doesn't say much for a divine creator that he has to go back and write a dumbed-down book to explain to his creations about what is going on around them.

[defanatic]

Keep in mind, God often plays time games, like "one day is as a thousand years with the Lord" or something to that effect, so since Adam "only" lived 930 years, it was still one day on God's clock.

It also took 7 "days" to create earth. We should honour the seventh "day" of rest, because God took that long. So should we go to church every 7000 years?

Besides, why does God need to work in days? Who has the nightshift?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Technically, they were both telling the truth.

Yahweh's statement refers to eventual death, which is true.

No, it doesn't!

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.

I'm not so sure that this is an accurate translation or meaning. A lot of the opening chapters are written with a lot of stylization that doesn't translate well. Fore example, God doesn't say "surely die" but more like "you will die the death", with two conjugations of met (die/death) in a row to add emphasis to the dying part.

It's been too long since I read Hebrew to help you more, but I'd say that the writing in the first chapters comes across as intentionally vague.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey, he's got wealth and taste, no lucifer is always like the Jinn of arab folklore, he doesn't lie to you, it just doesn't come out exactly as you thought it would.

[Zero]

I imagine that if there is actually a Satan, he'd be much more of a nice guy, now. After all, he's only guilty of the same thing God is, and he got absolutely fucked for it.

And no, I don't believe he lied, but I also don't believe that was what God was truly angry about. God was pissed because Adam and Eve disobeyed him, not necessarily because they had eaten the apple. Seems like a bloody odd thing to be pissed about, being as he's angry at them for making a supposedly immoral choice before they knew what moral was... meh.