Refrigerator logic, or a shower thought:

According to Genesis, God forbids Adam and Eve from eating fruit of the tree of wisdom, specifically of knowledge of good and evil.

Serpent talks to Eve, calling out God’s lie: God said they will die from eating the fruit (as in die quickly, as if the fruit were poisonous). They won’t die from the fruit, Serpent tells them. Instead, their eyes will open and they will understand good and evil.

And Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of wisdom, learning good and evil (right and wrong, or social mores). And then God evicts them from paradise for disobedience.

But if the eating the fruit of the tree of wisdom gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil, this belies they did not know good and evil in the first place. They couldn’t know what forbidden means, or that eating from the tree was wrong. They were incapable of obedience.

Adam and Eve were too unintelligent (immature? unwise?) to understand, much like telling a toddler not to eat cookies from the cookie jar on the counter.

Putting the tree unguarded and easily accessible in the Garden of Eden was totally a setup

Am I reading this right?

  • ivanafterall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    God wanted them unaware they were naked. He got all pissy and threw a huge tantrum after Satan told them the truth, basically damning humanity for not going along with his voyeur garden.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    You want a better plot hole?

    Ask yourself one, really easy, simple question:

    “Which came first? People? Or animals?”

    Then read Genesis 1. Think you have the answer? Then read Genesis 2. ;)

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      According to Dan McClellen, Genesis 2 is a retelling of Genesis 1 revised according to the sensibilities of a later century, according to scholarly consensus. Of course, also according to scholarly consensus (and revealed to students in seminary) the bible is not univocal, not divinely inspired and not inerrant, even though many denominations assert these by fiat. (Otherwise they wouldn’t give ministries authority to tell their flock not to be gay.)

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        It’s not though. Genesis 1 is the Elohist creation myth, Genesis 2 is the Jahwist creation myth. They both just got jammed together.

        This is why Genesis 1 has animals created first, and man and woman created at the same time, while Genesis 2 has man created first, then animals, then woman.

        Two different mythologies.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I think that you are reading it right. And while I personally wouldn’t associate obedience with moral “good”, whoever wrote this myth clearly did.

    In fact the whole myth feels like Yahweh creating a successful trap for the couple - the tree is in the garden, but they aren’t supposed to eat from it; the snake was in the garden, but they weren’t supposed to listen to it; and the serpent speaking the truth while Yahweh was being a liar (“you’ll die”… except they didn’t.)

  • philluminati
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Yeah basically.

    Without knowledge of good and evil how can you avoid evil acts? You can’t.

  • dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I always thought that this myth was Yahweh testing whether their free will (which he had given them) was actually working or not. It was totally a set-up.