Atheist Dick Harfield skims answers

QUESTION ASKED: What would have happened if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of the knowledge? Would there still be original sin? How would they have been able to have children without eating from the tree?

DICK HARFIELD'S RESPONSE: In point of fact, Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of knowledge. I can say this with complete assurance because the story of the Garden of Eden is known to be a myth that was adapted from the much older Epic of Gilgamesh. The concept of original sin was developed by Augustine of Hippo in the Christian era, but was not fully adopted as doctrine by the Orthodox Church or by Judaism (the religion in which the story was originally written). 

MY RESPONSE: The answer provided by Harfield contains a mix of solid points and some claims that warrant closer scrutiny. The answer provided by Harfield contains a mix of solid points and some claims that warrant closer scrutiny.

What holds up well: Correctly noting that original sin as a formal doctrine was largely developed by Augustine (4th-5th century CE) and is not a core concept in Judaism or Eastern Orthodoxy. This is accurate and important context.

Correctly observing that the Garden of Eden narrative predates Christianity and that Jewish interpretation generally does not read the story as transmitting inherited guilt to all humanity.

What is overstated or questionable:

The claim that the Eden story was "adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh" is a common popular assertion, but is considerably oversimplified. Scholars do identify thematic parallels, a wild/innocent man (Enkidu) who gains knowledge through a woman, loses a kind of primal state, and so forth. Yet, the relationship between the texts is debated. Most scholars today speak of shared cultural influences across the ancient Near East rather than direct literary borrowing or adaptation. The two stories are structurally quite different.

More significantly, saying you can assert "with complete assurance" that Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree because the story is a myth conflates two separate questions. 

Whether the story is mythological or historical is a separate matter from how the narrative functions theologically or literarily. The story, as written, depicts them eating the fruit. Calling it a myth doesn't erase what the text says it changes how you interpret what the text means.