Genesis 2–3 Cannot Establish the Need For Christ’s Death

[Ray the atheist]

Preamble
Genesis 2–3 is often treated as the foundation for explaining the Fall and the need for Christ’s death. But does the text itself actually establish those Christian claims?

The narrative leaves numerous important questions unanswered, including motivations, meanings, timing, consequences, and what actually occurred. These gaps require readers to supply assumptions that the text itself never states.
The Bible itself contains multiple theological interpretations of Genesis 2–3, representing later religious assumptions and beliefs that are not part of the original text.
If Genesis 2–3 cannot establish original sin, inherited guilt, or humanity’s need for redemption, then it cannot independently tell us why Christ’s death was necessary.

My argument is not that Genesis 2–3 is historically or literally worthless. Rather, I am questioning its usefulness as evidence for determining whether Christianity’s theological explanation of Christ’s death is true.

Definitions
1. Theological interpretation: A religious explanation or understanding assigned to a biblical passage.
2. Original text: What the biblical passage actually says, without later interpretations added to it.
3. Religious assumptions: Beliefs accepted without being explicitly established by the biblical text.
4. Evidence: Information or facts used to support or evaluate whether a claim is true.

Relevant Biblical Passages
Genesis 2:17
“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 shalt surely die.”
Genesis 3:7
“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
Genesis 3:22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”
Genesis 3:24
“So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Argument
P1: Genesis 2–3 does not explicitly establish the theological claims later used to explain Christ’s death.
P2: Claims requiring additional unstated assumptions cannot establish their theological conclusions.
C: Genesis 2–3 is insufficient evidence for determining whether Christianity’s explanation of Christ’s death is true.

[1213]

...
I would need you to explain why their disobedience was a rejection of God and not a rejection of his command.

The choice was basically between, go with the God, or go with the serpent. They went with the serpent and by doing so they rejected the other option that was the God.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #31]

I would need you to explain why their disobedience was a rejection of God and not a rejection of his command.

The choice was basically between, go with the God, or go with the serpent. They went with the serpent and by doing so they rejected the other option that was the God.

I think that by "went with", you mean "was persuaded by".

Adam and Eve were persuaded by the snake, not God.
Ok, so God's persuasive powers were inferior to the snake's persuasive powers.

Thinking about the reasons to not eat the fruit, they "went with" the snakes reasoning.
That doesn't mean that they rejected God or accepted the snake.

I can disagree with you and still want to be your friend.
Your arguments aren't who you are.. its what you use to persuade me.

Maybe the bible teaches to not "go with" bullies who threaten death, but to "go with" more gentle reasoning.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #29]

@Ray the atheist, the bottom line for me is that scientists who reject the possibility of the supernatural have faith that it all happens with natural causes, whereas other people have faith that the supernatural has caused and impacted the natural based on the design and beauty of the universe, for example. That is the difference of belief, and it all involves faith of one kind or another.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #29]

@Ray the atheist, the bottom line for me is that scientists who reject the possibility of the supernatural have faith that it all happens with natural causes, whereas other people have faith that the supernatural has caused and impacted the natural based on the design and beauty of the universe, for example. That is the difference of belief, and it all involves faith of one kind or another.

Most scientists do not have the faith you've unjustifiably ascribed to them. The scientific method requires that claims be distinguished as falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Many claims about the supernatural are unfalsifiable. This means that no quantity or quality of evidence will function to disprove many of the claims about the supernatural. So, the possibility of the supernatural is not necessarily rejected as false but is inadmissible as an explanation for anything because the claim cannot be reasonably investigated for us to determine if it is false.

I encourage you to visit the "Are you misunderstanding the scientific method?" topic in the Science and Religion forum: viewtopic.php?t=43308

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #2]

Genesis chapters 2 and 3 only establishes that the actions of Adam and Eve resulted in their expulsion from the Garden and the loss of what they originally had. That a "redeemer" would come and recrify the situation for their offspring is implied but not explained in Genesis 3:15. The role of Christ would be many thousands of years in the revealing but that there would be further chapters in this story is implicit in the edenic judgements of Genesis 3.

____________________________

How is a "redeemer" coming to rectify the situation for their offspring implied in Genesis 3:15?

GENESIS 3:15

And I will put enmity between you+ and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.”

The above explicitly states that the judgement concerns not just Adam and Eve but a future generation of "offspring". A "head blow" to Satan, implies he will be temporarily or permanently incapacitated by a future actor in the drama, yet to appear when the judgement was announced in Eden.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #34]

@Ray the atheist, the bottom line for me is that scientists who reject the possibility of the supernatural have faith that it all happens with natural causes, whereas other people have faith that the supernatural has caused and impacted the natural based on the design and beauty of the universe, for example. That is the difference of belief, and it all involves faith of one kind or another.

____________________________________

You are claiming that science uses faith and not what we call the "scientific methods".

Faith isn't part of the scientific process, sorry.

The scientific method generally involves observation, asking a question, forming a hypothesis, making predictions, testing them through experiments, collecting data, analyzing results, evaluating the hypothesis, replicating findings, peer review, drawing conclusions, and communicating results.

No faith there.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #35]

How is a "redeemer" coming to rectify the situation for their offspring implied in Genesis 3:15?
______________________________________

GENESIS 3:15

And I will put enmity between you+ and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.”

The above explicitly states that the judgement concerns not just Adam and Eve but a future generation of "offspring". A "head blow" to Satan, implies he will be temporarily or permanently incapacitated by a future actor in the drama, yet to appear when the judgement was announced in Eden.

__________________________________

I don't read " the judgement concerns not just Adam and Eve but a future generation of "offspring". A "head blow" to Satan, implies he will be temporarily or permanently incapacitated by a future actor in the drama, yet to appear when the judgement was announced in Eden." in the text.

I can't find that anywhere in the bible. It is an interpretation of Genesis 3:15, traditionally called the “protoevangelium.”

Where in the bible does it say that: " the judgement concerns not just Adam and Eve but a future generation of "offspring". A "head blow" to Satan, implies he will be temporarily or permanently incapacitated by a future actor in the drama, yet to appear when the judgement was announced in Eden.[/b]" in Gen 2-3"?

Lets not invent the bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #35]

How is a "redeemer" coming to rectify the situation for their offspring implied in Genesis 3:15?
______________________________________

GENESIS 3:15

And I will put enmity between you+ and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.”

The above explicitly states that the judgement concerns not just Adam and Eve but a future generation of "offspring". A "head blow" to Satan, implies he will be temporarily or permanently incapacitated by a future actor in the drama, yet to appear when the judgement was announced in Eden.

__________________________________

I don't read " the judgement concerns not just Adam and Eve but a future generation of "offspring". A "head blow" to Satan, implies he will be temporarily or permanently incapacitated by a future actor in the drama, yet to appear when the judgement was announced in Eden." in the text.

Just to explain, the words outside to "<--- quotation marks --->" are my own, written to support the point I am deducing from on the text; so you won't see my words in the text itself.

Hope that helps


JW

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #38]

Just to explain, the words outside to "<--- quotation marks --->" are my own, written to support the point I am deducing from on the text; so you won't see my words in the text itself.

Hope that helps

_________________________________

Yes, it does help.
Now I know that you made it up.


If you are needing to provide textual evidence, please don't change or add the words in the text.

Quote the actual verse, thanks.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #36]

You accidentally replied to me when your response was intended for BruceLeiter.