Questioning the Plausibility of the Story of the Bible's Serpent (Re-Visited)

(The following was adapted from the King James Version of the Bible)
Genesis: The Fall of Man

[Genesis 2:16-17]

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

[Genesis 3:1-7]

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from the tree in the garden?”
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
…the woman…took some and ate it… Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked…


It seems that despite contemporary criticisms of the bible, many critics still confess that the book is indeed a very wonderfully written book of fiction. Only one could imagine how religious people would react when they have read the following statement. Yet, in the eyes of many intellectuals and critics, the problems with the bible lie in the fact that its verses are either contradictory, inconsistent, illogical, or false. Here I shall discuss the logic behind the Genesis’ The Fall of Man, that is, whether the serpent did indeed lie to Eve at all. In my opinion, the answer to this question lies in the definition of ‘die’.

Before I begin my discussion, I would like readers to be aware that Eve, after having eaten of the Tree of Good and Evil, was alive still. Despite God’s warnings that Eve was to die after eating of the tree, Eve instead remained alive. This is where I shall start my discussion.

I would suppose that the first definition to consider is the literal definition of ‘die’. A common definition of ‘die’ would be to cease to live; undergo the complete and permanent cessation of all vital functions; become dead (adapted from dictionary.reference.com). This definition obviously does not apply because if it were so, then the story about the serpent’s deceitful act becomes implausible.

Therefore, the second definition of ‘die’ to consider is the theological one. The theological version of ‘die’ is to lose spiritual life (dictionary.com), and that the word ‘spiritual’ means to pertain to a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence (dictionary.com) – in conjunction with the definition of ‘spirit’. Yet, a simple search in “dictionary.com” shows that there are many other more plausible theological definitions to the definition of ‘spirit’:


2.
the incorporeal part of humans

I wonder how this definition explains anything at all. What is it to mean immaterial? To lose a immaterial life and acquire a material life? I speculate that ‘immaterial’ pertains to immortality, and the word ‘material’ pertains to mortality. This is because to be of material, one must be confined to the natural laws of the universe, and therefore live a life that is restricted to natural law alone, and dieing in a natural manner. I also consider this speculation quite intriguing because to God, immaterialness is of a very important characteristic of him, as it is of his immortality – which pertains to the violation of natural law itself. Yet, though it works for the part where the tree of knowledge of good and evil is concerned, the part about the tree of life makes this speculation doubtful [I tried thinking of other speculations to its definition, and even attempted to search for a widely accepted theological definition for ‘incorporeal’ – meaning immaterial]. Simply put, while the Tree of Life governs mortality, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil governs wisdom – awareness of good and evil.

3.
the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

This definition of spirit is indeed quite vague indeed, for even the definition of soul - the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect (dictionary.com) – is illogical also. If Adam and Eve both ate of the tree, why would they loose their moral awareness? This is very incoherent.

5.
a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.

If this definition were to be right, then what it means is that Eve will lose her supernatural self and live her life with her natural self. Again I speculate a similar hypothesis as #2, and came to the conclusion that the definition is very incoherent.

8.
an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.

This definition seems quite plausible in that this the loss of spirit, or attitude or principle, can be equated to the loss of Eve’s innocence. However, looking at the following quote:

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining
wisdom, she took some and ate it.

One has to wonder if a thought (or principle?!) can be equated to wisdom. The ability to think does not mean wisdom, for an individual may be critical and analytical, but not have true beliefs at heart.

9.
(initial capital letter ) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart.

This definition seems much more plausible, at first sight, but if it were used then it implies the beginning of the absence of a Godly intervention. This is clearly not the case in the bible, for Genesis 3 does in fact have the presence of godly intervention – as God curses his children for disobeying his orders. If this definition is applied, then the section would become a textual contradiction.

12.
the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.

If the sprit meant the soul – dieing meaning the loss of the soul - then the definition of spirit becomes incoherent. The bible depicts the loss of innocence and the acquisition of knowledge and mortality. I speculate then that the soul may represent immortality, that the soul is like the beings of the heavens, having eternal life; God could have been giving a warning to Eve (and Adam), that if they disobeyed, they shall gain mortality, the loss of the soul. It is incoherent, then, because the idea of having no soul contradicts the claims of contemporary religious people, that humans have both a material body and a spirit. Often, they claim that while the soul that rises to the heavens, the body that decomposes and returns to the earth. For if all the next future generations of Adam and Eve were born to the world, bearing their curse of having no soul, then it is true that humans do not go to heaven or hell after death – for that role is supposedly governed by the soul. It then follows that the functioning of the human mind does not necessitate the existence of the soul, which then undermines the significance of religion itself.

If the spirit meant the heart, (I speculate that this is not the physical one for if it were, then real death shall proceed) the metaphorical one, then the definition itself is implausible. We who supposedly bare the curse from Adam and Eve are aware that we, in fact, do have emotions. If we had lost the heart, then we will not be what we are today.

16.
an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.

This definition simply does not follow from the context of the bible. On what basis does Eve, and supposedly all of the rest of us, lose an attitude, disposition or action? It is quite awkward to associate innocence with attitude, for attitude means a certain response, a worldview. Innocence simply guides that state of mind, and thus both words are not equal in definition.


So which one to choose then? For each of the definitions there is in itself a different reasoning behind it. While some definitions might work (only to some extent), others would not. Thus, I ended up checking up the Catholic Encyclopedia for the definition, and quite disappointingly, it spitted out a very vague answer.

In the following discussion, I attempted to decipher the meaning of the serpent’s story, and gave greater analysis on Eve’s death – which is critical to answering whether the serpent was indeed crafty or truthful. Thus, my analysis leads me to one obvious conclusion. Unless more deciphering is done to Genesis’ chapter 3, I see no basis on even considering whether the serpent was indeed crafty or not. While the definitions mentioned lack logic and coherence with the rest of the bible, others are in contradiction with contemporary religious beliefs.

I would like to end, however, by saying that no matter the amount of good hypotheses generated to explain the validity of the bible, as long as no empirical evidence is presented to verify its plausibility, all remains nothing but as a myth. To belief on empirically unjustified propositions would be similar to a hospitalized patient who believes he is Michael Jackson, Elvis, or George W. Bush. From a rationalist point of view, only a lunatic would belief myths as facts, and it takes religion to make intelligent people believe in silly things.