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.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #36]

@Ray the atheist, can't you see that what you call the scientific method requires faith in the whole process, for example, that the method of measuring years, is accurate. Any human-made method is flawed, and it takes faith or reliance on its truth to accept it? That's the point.

[POI]

can't you see that what you call the scientific method requires faith in the whole process, for example, that the method of measuring years, is accurate. Any human-made method is flawed, and it takes faith or reliance on its truth to accept it? That's the point.

Allow me to steelman your position and assume that everything requires "faith". Are <varying> degrees of faith necessary to reach certain conclusion(s), or is it all-or-nothing? Meaning, is having "faith" that Jesus rose from the dead an equal faith-based-conclusion (vs) having "faith" about the actual age of a tree?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #42]

In a sense, they are similar, @POI, because they both have evidence on which to base that faith. We have historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, while we have the rings of the tree as evidence for the age of a tree. It takes reliance or faith to draw a conclusion from both kinds of evidence.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #42]

In a sense, they are similar, @POI, because they both have evidence on which to base that faith. We have historical evidence for (claim a) Jesus' resurrection, while we have (claim b) the rings of the tree as evidence for the age of a tree. It takes reliance or faith to draw a conclusion from both kinds of evidence.

Applying 'faith' in either claim would instead require (apples vs. oranges).

(claim a) - is a claim which would break "immutable scientific law", was claimed to happen once over two millennia ago, is not repeatable to test, is a historical claim rather than a scientific claim in which requires the historical method rather than the scientific method, in where such a claim is considered very weak - upon the historical method spectrum.

(claim b) - is a claim which would not break "immutable scientific law", claimed to happen any time, is repeatable for testing, is a scientific claim rather than a historical claim in which requires the scientific method rather than the historical method, in where such a claim is considered easily provable/repeatable - upon the scientific method spectrum.

In a nutshell, (claim a) would require much more blind faith, while applying the historical method, where-as (claim b) would instead require very low levels of faith, while instead applying the scientific method.

********************

A more befitting comparison might instead be comparing 'faith propositions' between (2) more parallel claims (i.e.): Both being one-time historical claims made, in which both claims rely upon or require using the historical method, and that both claims are from antiquity?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #44]

You are looking at claims from human viewpoints, both scientific and historical, @POI, whereas biblical reasoning looks at claims from a divine viewpoint (the rest of the Bible), which is different, depending on how much Bible evidence there is. On the other hand, God's thoughts are far beyond ours and require faith in mysteries of things that are not revealed, according to the following:

Isa 55:6  “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; 
Isa 55:7  let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 
Isa 55:8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 
Isa 55:9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

One of those thoughts of God is illustrated at the beginning of Isaiah 55 with a picture of a water-wine-milk street-salesman who gives away his products free, just as God gives his gifts of physical and spiritual life away by his grace, not by humans earning them.

[POI]

You are looking at claims from human viewpoints

'Faith' only applies to human viewpoints.

depending on how much Bible evidence there is

The more evidence in which exists for a claim, the less in which 'faith' is required for the claim. Meaning, the more evidence one has, the less faith one needs.

biblical reasoning looks at claims from a divine viewpoint

So basically, one must start by begging the question, as a theist's definition of 'biblical reasoning' essentially means "method of thinking, arguing, or decision-making that uses the Bible as the ultimate source of truth and authority.". Which means, if the Bible claims it, it must be true. And if a claim is found to be incorrect, (from our human perspective), then it is the human who is wrong. So basically, I now realize I'm attempting to exchange/debate with a presuppositionalist.

********************

I guess one final question remains... If one starts with the assumption that the book is true, and yet, there exists competitive books which also make claims to being the ultimate source of truth, how exactly might one pick (which one to apply such a presuppositional position to), since we are limited by our human minds? Does one just draw one of the names out of a hat, other?.?.?.?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #46]

No, @POI, it seems to me that you have to have faith that the "evidence" is really true. You may assume that it's true without question, but it is still faith or trust in those who created or discovered the "evidence."

I have faith for many reasons that the Bible presents true, ancient history; you don't. It is that difference in the objects of our faith that makes us differ.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #46]

No, @POI, it seems to me that you have to have faith that the "evidence" is really true. You may assume that it's true without question, but it is still faith or trust in those who created or discovered the "evidence."

I hardly assume claims are true without question. Further, it would also depend upon the claim(s) itself. It would also depend on the "evidence" provided. Circling this back around to Jesus, let's explore; as stated in that it depends upon the claim(s). I understand that virtually all claims from ancient antiquity carry with it inherent problems, especially when comparing such claim(s) to more recent history. However, I trust we agree that it is one thing to reach the conclusion that a man named Jesus once:

A) was born, preached, was executed for 'treason', the end. (vs)...
B) was born (of a virgin), performed (miracles), was executed for 'treason', (rose from the dead), (visited many folks postmortem).

I gather <we agree> that claims A) vs. B) carry with it differing levels of "faith" to reach such a conclusion?

As it stands, in line with using the tools available in exploration, via the historical method, I have little problem reaching conclusion A), but little to no 'faith' in additionally also reaching conclusion B). Here is where we differ....

I have faith for many reasons that the Bible presents true, ancient history; you don't. It is that difference in the objects of our faith that makes us differ.

What 'evidence(s)' exist to substantiate the claims above in red?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

It is a historical fact, @POI, that the Jews of that time wanted a Messiah who would boot the Romans out of Judea and rule the nation as an earthly king. It is also a valid conclusion that when Jesus died on the cross, his followers would have been deeply depressed, because the one they thought would be that king was killed. Because of the historical testimonies of two eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and two close associates of the disciples (Mark and Luke), they tell us that the disciples were changed to begin proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and that they had eaten with him, even to the same religious leaders who had killed Jesus and had the authority to have them killed (Acts 4). Such courage after their discouragement even in the face of suffering and death makes them very believable historical eyewitnesses. It is those eyewitnesses who convinced me at the age of 16 that Jesus rose from the dead and that the same God was powerful enough to do all the other miracles in the Bible.

Thus, the ancient history of the Bible is, indeed, reliable, and the same God has been blessing me by changing me for the better ever since he brought me to faith in him for the past 68 years since I was 16. You can read all about it in my book What God Has Done: My True, Dramatic God-Biography (Amazon), if you wish.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

It is a historical fact, @POI, that the Jews of that time wanted a Messiah who would boot the Romans out of Judea and rule the nation as an earthly king.

Therefore, as asked in post 48, 1) a virgin birth, 2) miracles, 3) rising from the dead, and 4) postmortem visitations did actually happen?

It is also a valid conclusion that when Jesus died on the cross, his followers would have been deeply depressed, because the one they thought would be that king was killed.

Therefore, as asked in post 48, 1) a virgin birth, 2) miracles, 3) rising from the dead, and 4) postmortem visitations did actually happen?

Because of the historical testimonies of two eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and two close associates of the disciples (Mark and Luke),

No one can verify who wrote the (4) Gospels, which then means we also cannot identify their source(s) and/or true motivation(s) for writing what was written.

they tell us that the disciples were changed to begin proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and that they had eaten with him, even to the same religious leaders who had killed Jesus and had the authority to have them killed (Acts 4).

Same as above... No one knows who actually wrote Luke and Acts which then again means we cannot identify their source(s) and/or true motivation(s) for writing what was written. However, allow me to steelman your argument here... Meaning, we have verified 'eyewitnesses' to postmortem appearances. Okay. We get this in testimonials from other ancient writings too. Does this mean you believe those claim(s) too? If not, why not?

Such courage after their discouragement even in the face of suffering and death makes them very believable historical eyewitnesses.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking because even the Bible does not explain how most of the disciples died. Sure, it briefly speaks of James death in Acts 12, but there are no details to substantiate him dying for his conviction(s) to a risen Jesus and refusing to recant. Same goes for Judas.

It is those eyewitnesses who convinced me at the age of 16 that Jesus rose from the dead and that the same God was powerful enough to do all the other miracles in the Bible.

Then I'll again await the answer(s) to the question(s) above in red.

Thus, the ancient history of the Bible is, indeed, reliable,

If this were the case, we would at least have evidence to substantiate 'The Exodus', being this was supposedly a massive event which involved millions of people over the course of a long period of time. And yet, I created a topic about it and Christians came with basically nothing. At best, just excuses as to why no evidence exists to substantiate such a large claim... --> (viewtopic.php?t=40622)

and the same God has been blessing me by changing me for the better ever since he brought me to faith in him for the past 68 years since I was 16. You can read all about it in my book What God Has Done: My True, Dramatic God-Biography (Amazon), if you wish.

I have been on the receiving end of countless testimonial(s)/claim(s) of 'being blessed' (and/or) having 'life changing experiences' from all flavors of Christians, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, etc... Heck, I can read books out their too I'm sure.

****************************************

Again, I understand that virtually all claims from ancient antiquity can be questioned and scrutinized, but all claims are not equal. It's one thing to just assume conclusion A) -- (as expressed in post 48). But it is going to take quite a bit more to substantiate conclusion B).