The Fall

For most Christians the "Fall" is the fallback (no pun intended) position on which everything bad may be blamed. And while this may be incredibly convenient, it is usually employed with little thought or examination. Whether such an answer really does have such extraordinary explanatory power I'll leave for another post or for someone else to examine. Rather, I wish to focus more upon the likelihood that this story is actually a literal account or merely a mythical tale meant to explain why evil and hardship exists in the world.

There is no doubt that to any objective reader this story smacks of mythology. A prototype pair, paradise, magic fruit and a talking snake all give the impression that this is a Jewish myth not unlike those found in surrounding cultures of the time. And although it is technically possible that this story is literal history, it is not, at this point, very probable. There are those, however, who insist that this story is historical fact and even take great offense to the mere suggestion that it could be otherwise. To see, then, whether there is any warrant in this, let us take as our hypothesis that Adam and Eve were real individuals living in the Garden of Eden and that everything happened just as Genesis describes. This will entail that God exists, but since not much is "revealed" about God at this point in the text, we shall assume the Christian tradition that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omniwise. I shall now argue that our hypothesis is inconsistent with this view of God and so one or the other or both must be given up. Let us proceed in a "play by play" fashion through the actual story:

Genesis 3

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made . And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said , Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Right away we are hit with a very strange suggestion. Apparently God originally made animals with remarkably human like qualities. A straightforward reading gives the impression that not just one serpent, but all serpents were crafty and cunning, more so than any other kind of animal. This doesn't seem like a good start for our hypothesis, since we have no experience of animals being like this, nor any reason to think they every were (if anything there is a host of reasons to think otherwise). Picking up on this oddity, most (if not all) Christians, as well as Paul and John, explain this away by indicating that the serpent was actually Satan or at least possessed by Satan. Unfortunately, the text itself gives us no reason to think this is the case and actually makes such an interpretation highly problematic.

Nevertheless, let us concede the point and grant the apologist this interpretation. What are we to make of such a suggestion? Let's see where such an understanding takes us. So the serpent (Satan?) begins by asking Eve a question about God's command not to eat of every tree. We'll ignore the fact that Eve seems completely comfortable with a talking animal. Now although we know that the serpent's intentions are malevolent (assuming this is Satan) the question, at least for us, is a good one.

What is the Point of the Forbidden Tree?

Talk to any Christian who accepts our hypothesis and you will most likely hear this answer:

"God gave humans free-will and wanted them to choose to love and obey Him. He did not want robots."

This answer, however, is fraught with problems! In the first place, why put the tree in the garden at all? Supposedly, based on the answer above, the presence of this tree is what gives Adam and Eve their free-will. For some reason they needed to be able to disobey God. But why? Free-will is an inherent property and not dependent on any particular kind of choice. If God truly wanted beings to commune with and with which to be in relationship, then what was the point of testing some strange idea of obedience? Furthermore, if God's omniscience includes future free acts, then "He" would have known that setting things up like this would lead to failure. This seems to defeat the whole point and one is left wondering if God actually wanted them to fail. This leads to the next point.

Second, the text gives no indication that Adam and Eve really understood why the command was given or what the consequences would be. If God was concerned about their success, then "He" didn't seem to prepare them very well. All they are given is this short warning:

"...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die ."

So Eve answers as follows:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said , Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die .

We see here that the punishment of death is strictly directed at Adam and Eve. There is no mention that failure will actually lead to, not just their own physical deaths, but spiritual death (i.e. separation from God) for everyone, the existence of pain and suffering, toiling, disease, disaster, the downfall of the entire cosmos, murder, jealousy, dishonesty and other wicked qualities, etc. Not only this, but supposedly separation from God entails having to be sent to a place of eternal torture unless an impossible payment is made. I cannot help but think that such information would be critical to Adam and Eve and why God would withhold such information is beyond me!
But let's give this story the benefit of the doubt. Let's speculate (which we are forced to do) that they have been sufficiently warned. Our next question for consideration will be:

Was the Deck Stacked Against Adam and Eve?

As we read on, we are told:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die : 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened , and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise , she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat , and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat .

Given the dire consequences associated with the fall, one has to wonder why God would allow crafty ol' Satan to deceive Adam and Eve? Given that Satan is a powerful being and known as the "father of lies", it seems a bit unfair to have our naive pair go up against such an adversary alone. In fact, the text seems to suggest that Adam and Eve had no problem choosing to obey God until the serpent shows up. If God knew that this would be their ruin, why allow Satan to spoil everything leading to so much unnecessary evil?

Unnecessary Evil

But okay, let's say this was all part of the test. God wanted them to make the right choice even in the face of a tempter. Based on how God created Adam and Eve, however, "He" knew they would not pass the test, so perhaps this was to be a lesson by experience. No biggie, God could have simply rectified the situation right then and there, but "He" doesn't. Instead, "He" leaves Adam and Eve in their "fallen" state and kicks them out of Eden. This, of course, leads to filling the world with corruption and sin, death and destruction and, if we are to subscribe to the Christian view, to filling up Hell with people who will be tormented forever.

When one stops to really think about it, nothing about this story seems legitimate given the sort of God that Christians believe to exist. It is far more likely that this story was a product of its time. The Hebrews understood that the world was not perfect and therefore needed a way to understand how it could have gotten that way in light of its being created by an all powerful God. Every one of the story's defects is what one would expect of a mythological narrative written by people ignorant of the past. It seems reasonable, then, to suggest that this narrative should be taken for what it is, myth. It is far more reasonable to believe that God possesses all the omni properties than to take this story as historical. One thing, however, is for sure. One cannot rationally hold to both.

Literally?

It is generally assumed by mainstream/traditional Christianity that the book of Genesis is a literal account of the history of the universe in general and the earth specifically. Many will argue that since Genesis is the Word of God, it must be true.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Genesis does hold such a status. An obvious question is: Does Genesis have to be literal in order to be true? The answer would by yes only if Genesis were meant to be taken literally. However, if Genesis were written as an allegory and intended to be an allegory, then it would be true as an allegory. The question, then, becomes one of purpose and intent.

Now, since we are assuming that Genesis is the Word of God, let us examine the plausibility that it was meant to be a literal historical account. We shall begin our examination with the seven day creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3. I will note up front that I do not contest verse 1:1, so let us skip to the actual account.

Following is a basic outline of the order of events taken prima facie and interpreted literally:

"Day" 1: Earth, light, Night & Day

"Day"2: Firmament (Heaven), divided waters above and below firmament

"Day"3: Gathered waters, dry land, vegetation

"Day"4: Stars, Sun and Moon

"Day"5: Birds and sea life

"Day"6: Land animals, insects and humans

"Day"7: God rests

There are several problems with attempting to view this account literally. The Hebrew word for 'day' is 'yom' and need not mean 24 hours, but may be translated as an indefinite period of time. Some have argued that 'yom' along with a numerical index always indicates a 24 hour period, but if this is based on example, then this commits the fallacy of begging the question. Evidence and context should be the primary motivator for how to interpret this particular instance.

Evidence 1:

The creation account of Genesis begins by indicating that the earth existed prior to light. This poses a serious problem for several reasons. First, light is an integral part of the workings of our universe. Special Relativity tells us that light is a constant and that time is malleable. Thus, light is plays an essential role in the time aspect of our universe as well as the causal structure of our universe. Second, since matter and energy are related via Einstein's E = mc^2, it would not make sense for the earth (which is matter) to exist without light. Not only this, but the earth would have to have at least some energy, which would require that light already exist. Finally, it is not at all clear what it could mean for light to exist apart from sources of light (e.g. stars). One might conjecture that this refers only to the existence of electromagnetic energy or perhaps virtual photons, but this seems unlikely as God then uses this light to distinguish between "Night" and "Day".

Evidence 2:

On "day" 1, we are told that God distinguishes night from day. But night and day are phenomenologically defined in terms of the earth's rotation in relation to the Sun. But since the sun doesn't exist for another three "days", one is hard pressed to maintain a literal understanding. Furthermore, a day itself is defined as one complete rotation of the earth, again, in reference to the Sun. One might surmise that God is merely omnisciently keeping track of earth rotations, but this seems problematic in light of the use of the phrase, "...evening and morning". It should also be noted that evening to morning does not span a 24 hour time period.

Evidence 3:

Genesis 1:2 & 1:6-9 indicate that liquid water abounded on the earth. This would be physically impossible, however, as our planet would have been a giant ball of ice in the absence of the Sun. One could speculate that God supplied the energy to liquify the waters, but this seems an unnecessary ad hoc argument as it simply would have been more reasonable to create the Sun first, especially given the physics of our universe and God's ultimate end design.

Evidence 4:

On "day" 2, God creates the firmament or heaven. Now, 'firmament' is the translation of the Hebrew word 'Raqiya', which means:

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
   1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
      1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above (http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07549&version=kjv)

The picture we get is that the earth is a flat surface (a common belief in that time) with a solid hemispherical "shell" or surface above. This "shell" not only has water "below" it, on the earth, but also seems to support a body of water "above" as well. On "day" 4, we are further told that God made the Sun, moon and stars and subsequently placed them within this firmament (Genesis 1:14-15; 1:17). In effect, the view seems to be that Sun, moon and stars all exist at approximately equal distances from the earth in a celestial shell that divides two masses of water. Modern cosmology, however, shows quite clearly that this is not literally the case.

Evidence 5:

On "day" 3 we have the waters "gathering" to one place. Again, this seems awkward given that the waters would be ice, which doesn't "gather". Furthermore, there is a significant problem with the appearance of vegetation prior to the Sun. Biochemically, we know that plants depend on the Sun by means of photosynthesis. But even if one postulates that this vegetation could survive 24 hours without light, there is still the problem of the planet's hostile ice environment, which is rather inimical to vegetational flourishing.

Evidence 6:

Finally, on "day" 4 we have the creation of the Sun, moon and stars. As a quick note, the Sun and moon have important tidal effects on the earth. It is not clear, then, if the environment on earth would have been suitable for life in their absence.
Nevertheless, if a literal 24 hours is intended, then sea, land and air creatures, along with humans, would have had to survive bitter, death dealing cold as 24 to 48 hours is not nearly enough time for the sun to defrost the planet.

Evidence 7:

Genesis 1:29-31 further indicates that all animals were herbivores. If so, then one must explain the large number of carnivorous animals in existence today and would have to explain the radical changes to their physical makeup (e.g. teeth, digestive system, etc.). Furthermore, if all animals, including humans, ate nothing but plant life, then the earth would quickly exceed carrying capacity as there would be no control of populations. This would lead to the destruction of plant life, which in turn would spell disaster for all animals and people.

Evidence 8:

The 7th day is quite curious. God is said to rest on this "day", but as God, "He" needs no rest. Because of this, one is forced to understand this as God setting an example, which is already a step toward following evidence away from a literal understanding. Furthermore, "day" 7 is curiously missing the "evening/morning" phrase. While this may be nothing more than an oddity, taken with the rest of the above evidence, it seems that a literal day is not intended.

Given the above evidences as a whole, it seems abundantly clear that Genesis' opening creation account should not be taken literally. But if not literal, then what are the alternatives and what implications does this have for the doctrine of inspiration and hence inerrancy? These things will be the subject of the next blog.