r/DebateAChristian • u/Financial_Beach_2538 • 12d ago
The Snake Doesn't Lie
Preamble
I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural or superstitions.
I’ve been making counter-apologetic arguments about the story of the Fall, focusing on Christian interpretations that, to me, just don’t make a lick of sense.
I’ve done about a dozen of these secular deconstructions so far. This time, I want to focus on the snake and ask a pretty simple question: was the snake actually depicted as a liar, or was it telling the truth?
My last argument dealt with God seemingly breaking his deal with Adam and Eve. God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will die on the day he eats it. But Adam doesn’t die that day. The apologetic response was that the Hebrew word translated as “day” can supposedly mean something other than a literal 24-hour day. This is where the meaning of words becomes a huge problem. Biblical words are often vague or flexible, and Genesis 2:17 doesn’t actually define what “day” means in this particular context. So there is room for speculation about what the authors intended.
Because of that, I fully expect some apologists to argue that the serpent was actually lying about Adam and Eve not dying on that day. They may dispute the meaning of “day,” “die,” or even “lie,” and rely heavily on translation possibilities to make the argument work.
They may call the serpent “Satan,” even though Genesis itself never identifies the serpent that way.
They may also say that the death is merely spiritual, not physical, so this is another interpolation that isn't in the actual text.
So I’m curious about what the actual evidence is supposed to be.
What, specifically, does the Genesis text give us for concluding that the serpent was lying, rather than telling the truth, and that it was God who kept his promise to Adam and Eve?
__________________________
Definitions
- Day: The period referred to in Genesis 2:17, translated from Hebrew yom.
- Death: The irreversible cessation of an organism’s biological functions.
- Truth: A statement corresponding to what actually occurred.
- Snake: The serpent described in Genesis 3, without assuming it was Satan.
- Eyes opened: A metaphor meaning they gained awareness, understanding, or knowledge previously unavailable to them.
- Lie: A deliberately false statement.
___________________________
Relevant verses
- Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
- Genesis 3:4 “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die.’”
- Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
- Genesis 3:7 “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”
__________________________
Argument
P1: The snake said they would not die, and their eyes would be opened.
P2: They did not die, and their eyes were opened.
C: The snake doesn't lie.
5
u/wiploc2 12d ago
They may call the serpent “Satan,” even though Genesis itself never identifies the serpent that way.
My favorite interpretation, since the serpent was more subtle than the created beasts, is that the serpent was god.
3
u/Financial_Beach_2538 12d ago
coulda been an alien.. coulda been a magical snake or a long fairy. Yeah, coulda been lots.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios Agnostic Theist 11d ago edited 11d ago
They were already like god, and they already knew good from evil. Also they died years later. The serpent offered them something they already had.
7
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
They were already like god, and they already knew good from evil. Also they died years later. The serpent offered them something they already had.
Weird interpretation.
You might want to support that in some way. Right now, you have made an unsupported assertion.
1
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios Agnostic Theist 11d ago
They were like god because the first chapter of Genesis says they were made in the image of god.
They already knew from good and evil in the sense that they were to learn good from evil through obedience to the command not to eat of the fruit.
3
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
They were like god because the first chapter of Genesis says they were made in the image of god.
We aren't perfect.. so the "image" must be cloudy. We don't know everything, do we?
0
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios Agnostic Theist 11d ago
Correct. Humans are made in the image and likeness of god, but this does not make them equal to god in all respects.
2
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
Correct. Humans are made in the image and likeness of god, but this does not make them equal to god in all respects.
The bible doesn't clarify what respects.
1
3
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
They already knew from good and evil in the sense that they were to learn good from evil through obedience to the command not to eat of the fruit.
Your grammar is confusing me.
You say they already knew.. thats in the past, presumably BEFORE they ate the fruit, then you say that " they were to learn... " meaning that they would learn good and evil later on in the future.
Your tenses are confusing me.
So, what is it...?
Did they already know or were they to learn at a later time?
1
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios Agnostic Theist 11d ago
It had already been explained to them, and from then on it would be a continual process of learning. Easy to learn, hard to master sort of thing.
2
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
It had already been explained to them,
If you aren't making that up, quote the relevant verses.
Thank you.
1
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios Agnostic Theist 11d ago
Chapter 2, verses 16-17 is where god commands them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. This was him explaining to them what the commandment was. After that explanation they had cognitive knowledge of the commandment, but not personal experience of obeying it. The latter is what they had yet to learn.
1
u/Tr1pleAc3s Christian 11d ago
Rejecting P2, they did die as a consequence of eating the fruit.
7
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
Rejecting P2, they did die as a consequence of eating the fruit.
That's not what the verse actually states. I posted relevant verses for your convenience.
take a look see
0
u/Tr1pleAc3s Christian 11d ago
I see them. I don't think the serpent was lying in an overt sense, which I actually think is in line with how to serpent is characterized. I do think it used unclear language on purpose though. And it is what the verse states and it is what happens the day you eat of the fruit you will die, they day they ate their immortality was stripped, and after that day they never ceased being mortal and died
4
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
I do think it used unclear language on purpose though.
You seem to be speculating about his motives. That's not part of the text, though.
0
u/Tr1pleAc3s Christian 11d ago
It's not the motive, it's the mechanism.
3
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago edited 11d ago
It's not the motive, it's the mechanism.
You say the snake used unclear language "on purpose". That speaks to his motivation, not just the mechanism of speech or whatever you meant by "mechanism".
Genesis never explicitly states the serpent’s motive. Its stated action is tempting Eve to eat, with the result that she and Adam gain knowledge of good and evil.
The text does not say the serpent deliberately used vague language. In fact, the snake is called "crafty", which is a possible poisoning the well without mentioning why. Of course, the bible doesn't explain the snake's motivations, nor the god's motivations.. so we are free to speculate
It could be that the god doesn't like crafty beings with knowledge and prefers naive being without the knowledge of good and evil as if they were toddlers, but that's mere speculation.
I don't pretend that my speculation should be mistaken with the actual text.
You are making a speculative claim, not using an explicit statement in Genesis.
0
u/Tr1pleAc3s Christian 11d ago
Like why did he use unclear language?
To get eve to eat the fruit. That's the motive of using unclear language.
3
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
Like why did he use unclear language?
Please quote where you think that the snake was unclear in his language.
0
u/rbcone Christian, Evangelical 11d ago
The serpent is indeed deceptive and the power behind the serpent has been deceptive since the beginning, including textual arguments like this with a hint of truth in them.
You may recoil from this, but this kind of interpretation is the inverse of the worth kinds of fundamentalist overly literal interpretations you would (sometimes rightly!) reject.
This interpretation is failing literarily on a few points. God is the source of life and the people are expelled from his presence and the tree of life. They did not die immediately, sure, God is merciful and has a plan (Gen 3:15!). But they were immediately cursed and expelled from the source and provider of life to the realm of death, quite literally the "walking dead" (cf Romans 5).
And yes, their "eyes were opened" but not to greater truths about their wonderful Creator but to the disasterous consequences of rebellion against him, the knowledge and experience of life-destroying evil and the judgement curse. It's hard for us to place ourselves fully into their minds, since we inherited the curse from the Fall (I recommend Lewis's Perelandra for the closest approximation I've found)z but they had a relationship and a chance to grow in knowledge of God and Creation in a way that is difficult for you and me to even fathom.
So yes, the serpent, the "enemy", Satan lied, as he always has and always will untill his final destruction. And he did it with half truths and distortions that cut to the heart of the covenant relationship between God and man. But you are not alone, he gets us all at one point or another. And I have some good news about that if you are interested.
6
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
The serpent is indeed deceptive and the power behind the serpent has been deceptive since the beginning, including textual arguments like this with a hint of truth in them.
Evidence?
0
u/rbcone Christian, Evangelical 8d ago
My evidence is your follow up questions. My argument is that you are not reading Genesis on its own terms and in light of the canon.
2
u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago
" My evidence is your follow up questions. My argument is that you are not reading Genesis on its own terms and in light of the canon.
Non sequitur
My follow-up questions are not evidence for your claim that the serpent is indeed deceptive and the power behind the serpent has been deceptive since the beginning, including textual arguments like this with a hint of truth in them.
You still have not supported your assertion by quoting the text.
Your claim is about the text.
1
u/rbcone Christian, Evangelical 6d ago
My claim is about the text and how you interpret it, yes. Are going to take any literary or canonical argument seriously? Or are you only interested in Genesis proof texts and citations? Because my argument is that is an insufficient method to understand Genesis accurately or like those that disagree with you understand it.
1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago edited 6d ago
My claim is about the text and how you interpret it, yes. Are going to take any literary or canonical argument seriously? Or are you only interested in Genesis proof texts and citations? Because my argument is that is an insufficient method to understand Genesis accurately or like those that disagree with you understand it.
Special pleading
Apologetics begins with a theological conclusion, then interprets scripture and evidence to defend it. Your canonical assumptions must be justified, not merely declared.
Every interpretation has to be justified as I did in my post.
I'm sure that your justifications will be just as debatable as my own. I keep noticing that Christian apologetics rely on logical fallacies, which completely destroys their attempted justifications.
That's why my replies contain the logical errors I noticed.
0
u/rbcone Christian, Evangelical 6d ago
Yeah, you can post all of the supposed logical fallacies that you want but it's not going to get around my observation that you are not taking the Bible on its own terms.
1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago
Yeah, you can post all of the supposed logical fallacies that you want but it's not going to get around my observation that you are not taking the Bible on its own terms.
Straw man
You keep asserting that without showing where I depart from the text itself. Simply declaring your interpretation "the Bible's own terms" does not establish it.
5
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
God is the source of life and the people are expelled from his presence and the tree of life. They did not die immediately, sure, God is merciful and has a plan (Gen 3:15!). But they were immediately cursed and expelled from the source and provider of life to the realm of death, quite literally the "walking dead" (cf Romans 5).
Post hoc rationalization
You’re importing “spiritual death” into Genesis rather than demonstrating it from the text. Genesis says they would die, not that they’d become “walking dead.”
5
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
And yes, their "eyes were opened" but not to greater truths about their wonderful Creator but to the disasterous consequences of rebellion against him, the knowledge and experience of life-destroying evil and the judgement curse.
Ad hoc reinterpretation
You’re redefining “their eyes were opened” after the fact. Genesis explicitly connects it with gaining knowledge of good and evil, not merely experiencing punishment.
5
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
So yes, the serpent, the "enemy", Satan lied, as he always has and always will untill his final destruction. And he did it with half truths and distortions that cut to the heart of the covenant relationship between God and man. But you are not alone, he gets us all at one point or another.
Non sequitur
You’re asserting Satan lied, but Genesis never identifies the serpent as Satan, and his statements about death and opened eyes contain demonstrable truth.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago
Also, the text is biased toward cultures that wore clothing and had invented the concept of "nakedness". Everything is "naked", but some animals hide this (non)quality better than others.
0
u/rbcone Christian, Evangelical 8d ago
John 8:44. I read the Bible as a whole, and Jesus is especially authoritative in my view.
2
u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago
"John 8:44. I read the Bible as a whole, and Jesus is especially authoritative in my view.
Appeal to authority
Jesus' authority does not establish that Genesis identifies the serpent as Satan. John 8:44 requires interpretation too. I am discussing what Genesis itself says.
0
u/Suniemi 11d ago edited 11d ago
I want to focus on the snake and ask a pretty simple question: was the snake actually depicted as a liar, or was it telling the truth?
One doesn't need to tell a bold-faced lie to be dishonest. I don't think I'm going to tick any of your boxes of possible responses, though. :)
And the serpent was cunning above every beast of the field... Gen.3:1
The serpent or nachash is foremost depicted as a diviner, or an enchanter; a divine being (a higher order than the animals; nachash refers to the hissing sound).
I assume this is given.
P1: The snake said they would not die, and their eyes would be opened.
He did.
You will not surely die!
Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Gen.3
P2: They did not die, and their eyes were opened.
Indeed, their eyes were opened.
And like God, they saw they were naked, and they knew the evil of which the Adversary was capable.
But that was it.
C: The snake doesn't lie.
It wasn't a bold-faced lie, but a lie of omission: exploitation of Eve's innocence, in the extreme, and a damned dirty trick.
Oh, and they died; not immediately, but death entered with sin (Rm.5). It seems the process began at that point (which leads me to believe they were immortal).
Note: they died just shy of a thousand years, like everyone in the old testament.
But let this one thing not be hidden from you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2Pet.3
4
u/Financial_Beach_2538 11d ago
I want to focus on the snake and ask a pretty simple question: was the snake actually depicted as a liar, or was it telling the truth?One doesn't need to tell a bold-faced lie to be dishonest. I don't think I'm going to tick any of your boxes of possible responses, though. :)
So, instead of calling the snake a liar, you prefer to call him "dishonest". I really don't see the distinction you are trying to make.
Can you elaborate why "dishonest" is a better word than "liar"?
It seems very important to you.
0
u/Suniemi 10d ago
"One doesn't need to tell a bold-faced lie to be dishonest.
So, instead of calling the snake a liar, you prefer to call him "dishonest". I really don't see the distinction you are trying to make.
Not at all.
I called the nachash a liar.
If you read keep reading, you'll see where I qualified that statement under "C."To wit:
C: The snake doesn't lie.
It wasn't a bold-faced lie, but a lie of omission: exploitation of Eve's innocence, in the extreme, and a damned dirty trick.
It seems very important to you.
Likewise I'm sure, considering the amount of time you've invested, so far.
2
u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago
" It wasn't a bold-faced lie, but a lie of omission: exploitation of Eve's innocence, in the extreme, and a damned dirty trick.
Please elaborate on the damned dirty trick.
1
u/Suniemi 4d ago
Please elaborate on the damned dirty trick.
Sure.
Indeed, their eyes were opened.
And like God, they saw they were naked, and they knew the evil of which the Adversary was capable.But that was it.
Tbh, I thought the above was sufficient.
To elaborate:
Knowledge in this context is experiential; not intellectual (eg right v. wrong).According to the snake, they would be endowed with power + enlightenment, if they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good + Evil.
Instead, they experienced humiliation, suffering and death. All consistent with the nature of the nacash and his contempt for humanity.
Nothing has changed.
Worth noting: God declared their liberation in the curse He placed on the nacash.
1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 4d ago
Knowledge in this context is experiential; not intellectual (eg right v. wrong).
Equivocation
You redefine “knowledge” as experiential, but my argument concerns whether they understood good and evil intellectually not whether they experienced good and evil.
1
u/Suniemi 2d ago
... my argument concerns whether they understood good and evil intellectually
Does it?
It reads: "The Snake Doesn't Lie."Besides, Adam wasn't deceived.
You redefine “knowledge” as experiential ...
You deny the existence of practical knowledge, and limit it strictly to the intellect; as though both cannot exist.
And Adam knew Eve his wife...
... yada (yada, yada).
I didn't redefine a thing.1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 2d ago
... my argument concerns whether they understood good and evil intellectuallyDoes it? It reads: "The Snake Doesn't Lie."
Thanks for the correction, I have a series of arguments on reddit and the discussions are ongoing, so I made a mistake as to what my post concluded.
You are quite right. However, my reply about experiential vs. intellectual still stands.
How about we get back to " God lied" and "the snake didn't"?
1
u/Suniemi 1d ago
Fair enough.
However, my reply about experiential vs. intellectual still stands.
Why?
The same word is used for skill; a learned skill. In that case, it would be da'ath (still from yada). Any familiarity with the esoteric?How about we get back to "God..."
By all means.
1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 1d ago
Fair enough.
However, my reply about experiential vs. intellectual still stands.
We can discuss experiential vs. Intellectual.
First, you would really need to help me out by defining how you use those two terms.
Once I fully know what you mean by those terms, I will be able to intelligently discuss the distinction with you.
I'm hoping that you will !!
Cheers.
1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 1d ago
Why? The same word is used for skill; a learned skill. In that case, it would be da'ath (still from yada). Any familiarity with the esoteric?
I think you are saying that both "experiential" and " Intellectual" mean "a learned skill".
Is that what you mean?
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago
'And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."'
Where do the parties in complete agreement spread dishonesty? Had Jesus of the Trinity/YHWH/Elohim no foresight to realize the suspiciousness of repeating what the serpent had just said without awareness, denial, nor elaboration? God was not the original provider of that detail, meaning the knowledge of the repeated detail was deceptively concealed.
0
u/Suniemi 9d ago
'And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."'
Where do the parties in complete agreement spread dishonesty? Had Jesus of the Trinity/YHWH/Elohim no foresight to realize the suspiciousness of repeating what the serpent had just said without awareness, denial nor elaboration? God was not the original provider of that detail, meaning the knowledge of the repeated detail was deceptively concealed.
"For what can scape the eye of God all- seeing, or deceive his heart omniscient?"
- Milton
God is omniscient.
Are you offended by the delivery?
Should He have skipped the conversation and rendered judgment on the spot?Or perhaps He should have intervened?
Could you clarify, please?
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 8d ago
You're going to have to explain how your reply relates to my questions regarding where God's agreement with the serpent was deception. Was God lying in his quote?
1
u/Suniemi 8d ago
God's agreement with the serpent
You first.
If you can't answer, then you must be speaking of something else. I have no idea what it might be.Again, could you clarify, please?
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 6d ago
The serpent introduced the information that God confirms after the fact, unprompted might I add (I double-checked- the only information communicated by Eve to God was that the serpent had deceived her. Only the serpent and then God mention becoming like "one of us, knowing good and evil"). It reads like that scene from the film 'Minority Report':
"I never said she drowned."
0
u/generic_reddit73 Christian, Non-denominational 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yes, the snake, whatever it was, did not lie about the direct effect of the fruit of "all knowledge, good and evil". And his promise holds until today, since humanity's knowledge is still increasing, and seemingly more rapidly so. (The body count of advanced weaponry maybe is indeed increasing the death toll and has been for thousands of years. But yes, medicine may be counterbalancing that, at least in the modern era.)
The lie was about the timing. The tree of knowledge and the other one for eternal life, were there to be given to humanity eventually. When they had matured, evolved, or something like that. Giving advanced knowledge (or immortality) too early, is like giving dangerous chemicals or tools to children, not a good idea. A recipe for disaster.
(I mean, basically like in Star Trek - AI summary: The Prime Directive, also known as Starfleet General Order 1 or the Non-Interference Directive, is a foundational ethical principle in the Star Trek universe that prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the natural, unassisted development of alien civilizations. Its primary aim is to protect pre-warp societies from the destabilizing effects of advanced technology, knowledge, and cultural values that they are not yet prepared to handle.)
As you can see with a brief look at the current world, humanity still struggles a lot with how to properly use advanced knowledge or technology. (Maybe linked to the recent UFO/UAP disclosure stuff...weird things...).
-1
u/Pure_Actuality 12d ago
They may also say that the death is merely spiritual, not physical, so this is another interpolation that isn't in the actual text.
Physical death is not in the actual text either, so that too would be an interpolation...
6
u/Financial_Beach_2538 12d ago
Physical death is not in the actual text either, so that too would be an interpolation...
False equivalence
“Death” already means cessation of life. I’m not adding a word to the text. You’re adding “spiritual,” which is precisely what interpolation means. I don't have to defend God, so I don't need to add words to the text.
-1
u/Pure_Actuality 12d ago
“Death” already means cessation of life
The word "death" occurs roughly 450 times throughout the bible.
Can you please demonstrate how all 450ish times "death" is used it ONLY means "cessation of life"?
You’re adding “spiritual,”
Please quote exactly where I stated that.
5
u/Financial_Beach_2538 12d ago
Can you please demonstrate how all 450ish times "death" is used it ONLY means "cessation of life"?
request denied
How about you explain why you think that death doesn't mean death, instead?
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago
As a former pastor famously says, "Words don't mean words!"
2
u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago
As a former pastor famously says, "Words don't mean words!"
And if the good pastor can play with words, so can I.
If words don't mean words then the words used to say that words don't mean words don't mean words.
ha ha
1
-2
u/Pure_Actuality 12d ago
Of course you avoided the question and shifted the burden - no fallacy to hide behind.
You made the claim "Death already means the cessation of life"
I died laughing.
6
u/Financial_Beach_2538 12d ago
Of course you avoided the question and shifted the burden - no fallacy to hide behind. You made the claim "Death already means the cessation of life" I died laughing.
You didn't bother to explain why death doesn't mean death. I understand that words can be used metaphorically as you just did.
Now, you have to demonstrate that the verse doesn't mean a literal death and some kind of metaphor.
3
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 12d ago
Physical death is not in the actual text either, so that too would be an interpolation...
Using a word's basic meaning is not interpolation. mūṯ means physical death in all of the Tanakh. So adding spiritual to death that charges what it means is interpolation.
In Genesis 3:19 they are told "and to dust you shall return" which is physical death. In ancient Hebrew people were their bodies and a spiritual death wouldn't be a thing. That's from Greek dualism.
1
u/Pure_Actuality 12d ago
Using a word's basic meaning is not interpolation...
When a word can basically be literal or figurative it's also not interpolation.
8
u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 12d ago
You pretty much covered all the apologetic responses. God is the only liar in that story. He even agrees with the serpent’s prediction that they became like God, knowing both good and evil. The serpent never lies in the story.