Growing up as a Roman Catholic, it was drilled into me from an early age that I was born with sin, and that I inherited it from my ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. Thankfully, Jesus nobly sacrificed himself on the cross in order to redeem me, thus opening the door to save my immortal soul. Trouble was, I never found the story of Adam and Eve to be especially compelling. It reeked of a setup, what with the suspicious placing of the tree that bore the fruit of knowledge and good and evil, talking snake, and what-not. It was inevitable that I would seek out the origins of the origin story so that I may learn the truth about one of the most crucial passages in The Bible. After all, my entry into Heaven depends on its veracity, so I figured that I had better make sure that it rests on solid ground. Not to give away too much, but I found some issues...big ones.

The Origins of the Origin Story

Long before the Old Testament was written, ancient authors from the four corners of the globe, including China, Egypt, Iceland, Greece, Mesopotamia and the Americas, were all grappling with the same big questions, namely where did we come from and why is our world the way it is? These two questions led to the crafting of various origin stories, including the Adam and Eve story. The version that came to be in the Old Testament was probably written somewhere between 950 and 400 B.C.E., likely in Palestine¹. A clear sign that the Adam and Eve origin story was written by a different author than the person who penned the Genesis account of creation is that, in Genesis, humans are created last, whereas in the Adam and Eve story, "God forms the first man before creating any other animal, and when God finds no suitable "helper" for the man from the animal kingdom, he fashions the first woman from one of the man's ribs."²

It's important to consider that the Adam and Eve story was written in a time when there were many gods. Moreover, the gods of the day were much more human-like in comportment. They were emotional, petty, and did not think things through. As a result, they made blunders and had ill-advised affairs with other gods and humans alike. In short, they were flawed and imperfect. You may recognize some of these traits in Yahweh, the tribal God of the Old Testament, who Himself declares that He "is a jealous God!"³. It was not until after the New Testament that God gradually transformed into the omniscient and omnipotent super-God that we know today.

The reason that I bring this up is that God's transformation to an all-knowing and all-powerful deity presents some highly troubling ramifications to the story. A big one is that, reading the text with a modern view of God, we can only conclude that He knew full well that His creations would be tempted by the forbidden fruit, and, indeed would ultimately succumb to the temptation.

On the Atheist Experience podcast, biologist and science communicator Forest Valkai summarized the situation as follows:

So here's God. God puts humans into this garden. They literally don't know what evil is because they haven't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet. They don't know what wrong is. And God takes the thing that they're not supposed to do. He could have put the tree in another goddamn garden, but instead he puts it right in front of them, and then allows someone to tempt them, and knows the whole time because he designed it this way and is all-knowing. I'm going to do this. They're going to eat the fruit and then they're going to be sinful and then I'm going to punish them. And then that happens. And he goes, How could you do this to me?!⁴

Some have gone so far as to question what the purpose of the tree was to begin with. If God is all-knowing, why would He even need a tree of knowledge? Was there even a remote chance that He would forget some things and need to freshen his knowledge? Not likely. In the context of a god who is perfect in every way, we would have good reason to suspect that the tree was there specifically for the purpose of ensnaring the naive humans.

Unfortunately, it only gets worse from there.

Not only did the God of the Old Testament put forbidden fruit within reach of humans who had no way of gauging the consequences of their actions, but He went a step further by introduced a talking snake into the mix, whose purpose was ostensibly to make sure that they would take the bait, as it were. Were God not all-knowing, perhaps one could believe that there were talking animals in the Garden of Eden and that some of them had somewhat nefarious tendencies. However, the text only ever mentions the one talking animal in the entire garden. Add that to our present understanding of Yahweh, and we must conclude that God knew that the snake would be there and that it would persuade Eve to take a bite of the forbidden fruit. Again, it almost seems like the snake was given the power of speech and persuasion for this very purpose. God's all-knowing nature rules out any possibility for coincidence.

I've heard Christians say that humans were very intelligent and indeed knew what they were doing was wrong, snake or no snake. Perhaps they were intelligent. I'm not sure how anyone could properly deduce that. In any case, their level of intelligence is irrelevant. One can certainly be highly intelligent and still be tricked. How many doctors have fallen prey to con artists? The short answer is a lot; along with scientists, astronauts, and a whole bunch of Mensa members. The crux of the issue is that, as Forrest astutely points out, Adam nor Eve would comprehend the notion of good and evil until they partook of the fruit. Therefore, they could not have understood the ramifications of their actions.

Some Christian theologians have blamed Satan for helping the prototypal couple in their rebellion against their creator. However, the text makes no such claim. Rather, the snake is simply another instance of the "trickster" archetype that appears in many mythological tales. Who-or what-ever the snake is, the point is that the all-knowing God knew from the moment that He created the snake and gave it the power of speech that it would go on to cause great trouble for the human couple. Like the tree, the snake really had no business being there, and God could have easily put both far from the Garden that Adam and Eve inhabited. The fact that God punishes the snake, along with his human creations, is a tell-tale sign that the god of the original story really didn't know what had transpired until after the fact. The whole story takes a decidedly dark turn when God, who always knew precisely what would happen, doles out punishment that really has no purpose but to make all of the transgressors suffer.

I'd also like to say a few words about apologists' couching of Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit as an "act of rebellion". That's strong language that implies that the pair willingly went against their maker. What really happened was that two innocents were simply not equipped to know whether to trust God or the talking snake. Humans, who are curious by nature, just couldn't resist the temptation to find the answer. Imagine what would happen if we applied the same standards to teenagers everywhere? "You stayed out past curfew. You're out of here! Not only that, but I will bring suffering onto you and your offspring for the rest of time!"

Which brings us to the whole issue of free will. God gave his creations the ability to make their own decisions, so that they may choose to love Him of their own volition. That's nice. What isn't so nice is handing down harsh and eternal punishment for using one's free will in a way that is not to God's liking. If the Bible is one hundred percent accurate and true, how does one reconcile a loving God with the one that we're presented with, not just in the Adam and Eve story, but throughout the Old Testament? Many skeptics have written at length about what a god awful (pun intended) character Yahweh is. Dan Barker comes to mind. Richard Dawkins has touched on it as well. Many agree that, if the God of the Bible is real, they wouldn't want to worship Him.

Trouble In Paradise

So let's say that the story is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. That's a problem because, without original sin, Jesus really had no reason to sacrifice himself on the cross. Moreover, there would no longer be any requirement for Christians to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour in order to be saved. In effect, the entire premise of Christianity crumbles like a house of cards. Without any rational for Jesus to come down to Earth, one would really have to question the validity of the entire New Testament. Suffice to say, it isn't a good sign when one loose thread can unravel an entire religion! Perhaps that's why believers are discouraged from asking too many questions.

Conclusion

If the story of Adam and Eve were the lone problematic chapter in a massive tome like The Holy Bible, that would be calamitous enough, since, as I mentioned, it underpins the entire Christian faith. However, it's really par for the course. Consider Noah's Ark, the story of Job, Samson, Moses(you know, the guy who, with God's guidance, wandered the desert for 40 years!). The problems in each story have been pointed out numerous times. Most are easily shown to be complete fiction. Some critics have gone so far as to state that the stories are not at all suitable as morality tales either, what with their wanton violence, inbreeding, and tribal favoritism.

When someone insists that the Bible is completely inerrant and factual, I can only roll my eyes. I know that there is no point in presenting facts. The faithful are largely immune to those. I can only politely ask him or her to please not pray for me. As for myself, knowing that without original sin, I wasn't born broken, is no small consolation.

Footnotes

1, 2: https://people.howstuffworks.com/adam-and-eve.htm 

3: Old Testament, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14, etc.

4: YouTube Short from the Atheist Experience Episode "Checkmate Evolution: Spiders Don't Have Wings" - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I7Ndh8FVdIs