What if Satan ate the fruit from the tree? What then?

[Casualfanboy16]

I just had a thought. What do you would happen if Satan were to have eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of Adam and Eve? Because Adam and Eve took a bite and gained all that knowledge, so what would happen in the event that Satan were to take a bite? I'm still pondering this, so I don't have an answer, but it's an interesting turn of events from the Biblical canon. It's purely a what-if situation, but it's neat to think about.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

I just had a thought. What do you would happen if Satan were to have eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of Adam and Eve? Because Adam and Eve took a bite and gained all that knowledge, so what would happen in the event that Satan were to take a bite? I'm still pondering this, so I don't have an answer, but it's an interesting turn of events from the Biblical canon. It's purely a what-if situation, but it's neat to think about.

 

 

If Satan is as he's portrayed in scripture, then by the time god created the garden of Eden, he already knew good and evil, Casualfanboy16.

 

He was created as a good and powerful archangel, but rebelled against god, discovering the potential for evil within himself rather than acquiring a knowledge of it from an exterior source like a magical tree.  This is fundamentally different from Adam and Eve, who seemingly did not have the potential to find that knowledge within themselves.  Only with the prompting of Satan, in the guise of a serpent, did she first begin to contemplate the possibility that she could be more than the person god created from Adam's rib.

 

The rest, as the inerrantists say, is history.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Excelent question.  I had never thought of it in those terms.  

 

Off the top of my head, if you believe the Sumerian stories of creation, god and "satan" (not called that in their stories) were actually both "gods", and had more or less the same authority.  One didn't like the humans and wanted to keep them "in their place", but the other wanted to help them.  There was actually a "god" over those two gods.  The bible came later and changed the story, thereby creating just one "God".

 

And come to think of it, I don't think Sumerian stories even mention the tree of knowledge.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

The Sumerian stories make more sense than the Bible. 

[pantheory]

According to Abrahamic religions, the old testament tells that God created his angels having the knowledge of both good and evil, When Lucifer led a rebellion of Angels in heaven, God created Hell as a place to banish them.. Later this Hell also supposedly becomes a place for the unfaithful and sinful humans to go after death. But on the other hand if you're good and faithful to the word of the one and only God, etc. 

 

Some of the strange stories of the Bible read like obvious fables, while others, like most of the fables in Genesis, can also be easily proven wrong by science.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Well, I guess it depends on how you read it. There was no Satan as serpent in the garden in Judaism, just a clever serpent that apparently walked and was later cursed to crawl on his belly (I assume all brands of serpents were thusly cursed) and "eat dust", and I don't think most believers think Satan does this. Later the Christians added the idea (in The Revelation) of "That ancient serpent" being Satan in the garden, though scholars I've been watching on YT seem to think that this refers to Leviathan, a sea or water monster also common in myths of other cultures in that area. Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan. "ha satan" the adversary, was an angel that participated in the council of God and angels (or gods). 

 

So to eat the fruit, the snake would have to be a vegetarian...  But if there were a classic Satan character, he likely already had the knowledge. 

 

 

Here's a short 3 minute lowdown on Satan in the Bible. He has others on Lucifer and Leviathan: 

 

[mwc]

     Well, there was only a rule that said Adam (and by extension Eve) couldn't eat from the tree.  So it was fair game to all other critters.  What that means is Adam and Eve would just sit there all day watching what amounted to their peers eating away from this tree that they couldn't go near.  Then, one day, Eve gets into with a snake that tells her that it perfectly fine to eat from.  Not because it's lying but because it has eaten the fruit like every other animal except Adam and Eve.  It knows from experience even if that knowledge is not complete (ie. magic can have different effects).  So Eve eats the fruit and the hammer is dropped.

 

     There's no reason to assume all animals in the garden would avoid the fruit simply because god told one single animals, Adam, to keep away.  It wasn't a blanket ban.  Whether or not everything that ate from the tree gained any special knowledge is unknowable.  Magic can work so that only humans will benefit with special moral knowledge while all others only get a tasty treat.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     Well, there was only a rule that said Adam (and by extension Eve) couldn't eat from the tree.  So it was fair game to all other critters.  What that means is Adam and Eve would just sit there all day watching what amounted to their peers eating away from this tree that they couldn't go near.  Then, one day, Eve gets into with a snake that tells her that it perfectly fine to eat from.  Not because it's lying but because it has eaten the fruit like every other animal except Adam and Eve.  It knows from experience even if that knowledge is not complete (ie. magic can have different effects).  So Eve eats the fruit and the hammer is dropped.

 

     There's no reason to assume all animals in the garden would avoid the fruit simply because god told one single animals, Adam, to keep away.  It wasn't a blanket ban.  Whether or not everything that ate from the tree gained any special knowledge is unknowable.  Magic can work so that only humans will benefit with special moral knowledge while all others only get a tasty treat.

 

          mwc

 

 

I have to take issue with you on an assumption you're making, mwc.

 

Genesis 1 : 26 - 30

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

 

Even though every green plant was given to the animals in verse 30, in verse 26 Adam and Eve were given dominion over all the animals.  So the animals can't really be considered as their peers.  

 

I don't think that part of your argument agrees with scripture.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

How about this, mwc?

 

The terms and conditions of who may eat in god's creation are set down in Genesis 1 : 29 & 30.

 

God speaks to the male and female humans he creates and tells them that every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seeded fruit is theirs to eat.  Then he adds a different clause for the animals.  They are given every green plant for food.  These two dietary conditions are not the same.  One set of foods for the humans and another for the animals.

 

Genesis 2 : 8 & 9

 

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 

9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

If we are to reconcile chapters 1 and 2, then the trees in Eden that were pleasing to the eye and good for food would also have to be trees with seeds.  If that's so, then these trees would have been off limits to the animals.  They are allowed to eat every green plant for food.  But the seed-bearing plants and trees are set aside for Adam and Eve. 

 

Does that hold water?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I have to take issue with you on an assumption you're making, mwc.

 

Genesis 1 : 26 - 30

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

 

Even though every green plant was given to the animals in verse 30, in verse 26 Adam and Eve were given dominion over all the animals.  So the animals can't really be considered as their peers.  

 

I don't think that part of your argument agrees with scripture.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

     A poor choice of words perhaps.  I suppose they weren't truly equals.

 

     I can't recall why I chose it.  Maybe just because they were all fellow garden dwellers but I can't actually say for sure.

 

     I also see that animals only get green plants but not fruit trees?  I thought some animals had diets that were primarily fruit based (I want to say some monkeys but I'm far from certain on this).  I suppose they had to eat a lot more to make up for this prohibition. 

 

     I'm now wondering if the animals couldn't eat human food due to some biological reason or if they had a separate punishment if they dared to eat human food.  Like Adam and Eve had a forbidden tree and the animals had a whole category of forbidden items that, if eaten, led to a fallen animal Adam and Eve.  A poor Adam and Eve pair of gerbils and their family sent out of the garden for eating the wrong thing.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, mwc said:

     A poor choice of words perhaps.  I suppose they weren't truly equals.

 

     I can't recall why I chose it.  Maybe just because they were all fellow garden dwellers but I can't actually say for sure.

 

     I also see that animals only get green plants but not fruit trees?  I thought some animals had diets that were primarily fruit based (I want to say some monkeys but I'm far from certain on this).  I suppose they had to eat a lot more to make up for this prohibition. 

 

Fruit bats?    Frugivore - Wikipedia

 

But let's not forget that any examples we can bring to mind from our world are post-Fall examples.  According to scripture the whole of creation was fundamentally changed by Adam's sin, allowing such things as decay and death to contaminate everything.  With the advent of death we aren't just talking about animals dying peacefully at the ends of their natural lives.  No.  When death enters the equation animals start killing each other.  This is the beginning of the herbivore / carnivore split.

 

As I understand it, before the Fall no other animal killed another for food.  They were given green plants and that was it.  But after the Fall there were predators like lions, wolves and bears.  The bible acknowledges this change in Genesis 9, after all animal life (excepting those on the Ark) was wiped out by god.

 

 1Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 

2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 

3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
    by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
    has God made mankind.

 

 Once again we see the same kind of hierarchy that held sway in Eden, before the Fall.  Mankind is special.  All the animals are now given into mankind's hands as food, but any animal that sheds human blood is answerable to god for doing so.

 

4 hours ago, mwc said:

     I'm now wondering if the animals couldn't eat human food due to some biological reason or if they had a separate punishment if they dared to eat human food.  Like Adam and Eve had a forbidden tree and the animals had a whole category of forbidden items that, if eaten, led to a fallen animal Adam and Eve.  A poor Adam and Eve pair of gerbils and their family sent out of the garden for eating the wrong thing.

 

          mwc

 

 

Another point to consider is that we are trying to make sense of two slippery things.

 

1.  Magic. 

2. The mind of a god worshipped by Bronze Age goat herders.

 

In my opinion all we can do is look to scripture and apply logic to it, gleaning what we can, where we can.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Fruit bats?    Frugivore - Wikipedia

 

But let's not forget that any examples we can bring to mind from our world are post-Fall examples.  According to scripture the whole of creation was fundamentally changed by Adam's sin, allowing such things as decay and death to contaminate everything.  With the advent of death we aren't just talking about animals dying peacefully at the ends of their natural lives.  No.  When death enters the equation animals start killing each other.  This is the beginning of the herbivore / carnivore split.

 

As I understand it, before the Fall no other animal killed another for food.  They were given green plants and that was it.  But after the Fall there were predators like lions, wolves and bears.  The bible acknowledges this change in Genesis 9, after all animal life (excepting those on the Ark) was wiped out by god.

 

 1Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 

2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 

3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
    by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
    has God made mankind.

 

 Once again we see the same kind of hierarchy that held sway in Eden, before the Fall.  Mankind is special.  All the animals are now given into mankind's hands as food, but any animal that sheds human blood is answerable to god for doing so.

 

     This doesn't really fundamentally alter what you're saying but it has been my understanding that the reckoning (or 'accounting' in this translation) is that anyone, or any animal, that kills a human is to be killed by humans.

 

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Another point to consider is that we are trying to make sense of two slippery things.

 

1.  Magic. 

2. The mind of a god worshipped by Bronze Age goat herders.

 

In my opinion all we can do is look to scripture and apply logic to it, gleaning what we can, where we can.  

 

     I agree.  Which is why I don't tend to take this seriously.

 

     Now, let's not be too quick to dismiss the fall of the previously mentioned gerbils.  They were kicked out of the garden because, perhaps, an evil worm seduced one of them.  Then they were sent out and a tiny little flaming toothpick blocked the little gerbil entrance so they couldn't return.

 

     Now, each set of animals, one by one, each defied god's strange food prohibitions.  And one by one they were sent out of the garden and their re-entry was blocked by various flaming things.  One by one the animal world was cursed and the garden emptied.  Except for the animals that were able to resist since there were no larger serpent like animals present to tempt them, such as the dinosaurs, who then easily survived eating bits of grass until the flood came along and wiped them and their garden prison off the face of the earth forever.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

 

 

     Now, let's not be too quick to dismiss the fall of the previously mentioned gerbils.  They were kicked out of the garden because, perhaps, an evil worm seduced one of them.  Then they were sent out and a tiny little flaming toothpick blocked the little gerbil entrance so they couldn't return.

 

     Now, each set of animals, one by one, each defied god's strange food prohibitions.  And one by one they were sent out of the garden and their re-entry was blocked by various flaming things.  One by one the animal world was cursed and the garden emptied.  Except for the animals that were able to resist since there were no larger serpent like animals present to tempt them, such as the dinosaurs, who then easily survived eating bits of grass until the flood came along and wiped them and their garden prison off the face of the earth forever.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

I don't dismiss what you are saying here, mwc.

 

It's just that by taking the position of Devil's Advocate and putting myself into the shoes of a bible-believing Christian I'm obliged to take only the bible as authoritative.  Quasi-biblical speculations like yours would not be accepted by such a Christian.  

 

But between you and me (ha! ha! this is a public thread) since we both agree that the bible is an ancient collection of nonsensical myths, what you suggest could indeed be the case.  However, we are never likely to know for sure.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

57 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

I don't dismiss what you are saying here, mwc.

 

It's just that by taking the position of Devil's Advocate and putting myself into the shoes of a bible-believing Christian I'm obliged to take only the bible as authoritative.  Quasi-biblical speculations like yours would not be accepted by such a Christian.  

 

But between you and me (ha! ha! this is a public thread) since we both agree that the bible is an ancient collection of nonsensical myths, what you suggest could indeed be the case.  However, we are never likely to know for sure.

 

     That's because you're using the biased human bible.  Were you using a proper gerbil bible you'd change your tune.  Unfortunately, the gerbil bible was shredded and used to line their own cage long ago.  I believe it was a part of their curse but we can never know for certain.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     That's because you're using the biased human bible.  Were you using a proper gerbil bible you'd change your tune.  Unfortunately, the gerbil bible was shredded and used to line their own cage long ago.  I believe it was a part of their curse but we can never know for certain.

 

          mwc

 

 

An irrefutable argument!

 

I yield, mwc!

 

 

[Casualfanboy16]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     That's because you're using the biased human bible.  Were you using a proper gerbil bible you'd change your tune.  Unfortunately, the gerbil bible was shredded and used to line their own cage long ago.  I believe it was a part of their curse but we can never know for certain.

 

          mwc

 

Missed opportunity to call it the Gerbible